Hi,
On Nov 27, 2007 12:13 AM, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007, Karthik Kumar wrote: > > I would like to propose a set of diffs to enable compilation of gcc > > without requiring flex/bison. I feel that this would greatly benefit > > the variety of users building gcc. > > Dear Karthik Kumar, why not flex/bison? It's bad idea not using them. I'm not saying we don't use flex/bison. I am only saying we can remove that as a build dependancy; Many people have to use specific versions of lex (flex) and yacc (bison) if they wish to compile gcc. All directories which have configure scripts also have their autoconf files (configure.ac) in the tree. And many directories which have Makefile.in have Makefile.am as well. It is generally a good idea for the user to keep the autotools as well; But there is no need to use those if the configure and Makefile.in files are already there. Besides, taking a look at the tree, libintl and libjava have processed .y files. I only suggest that we keep the C versions of these files in the tree as well. > > The tools flex/bison are required as any tool > ( e.g. patch, diff, binutils, sed, bash, gzip, cvs, m4, etc. ) and > they are smaller executables to be stored in a CD. > > The generated files from flex/bison are a lot of "trashing hexadecimals" that > don't must to be commited to any cvs/svn/git/hg because it consumes > a lot of diskspace for only a modification of few lines of flex/bison sources. The configure/Makefile.in scripts are significantly large as well. -- Karthik
