AIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "PGSQL Hackers"
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Bison 2.1 on win32
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Do you happen to have a 2.2 around so you can see what h
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you happen to have a 2.2 around so you can see what happens there? Or
> does someone else have that? So I know which version to test against...
2.2 and 2.3 seem to use _MSC_VER in the same way. I had occasion to
test both last fall, and they genera
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Actually, looking at the GNU ftp site, there isn't even a version 2.2
>> available. There is a 2.1a which should have the fix (based on file
>> dates - they don't use branches or tags in their cvs repository).
>
> Huh? At
> http://f
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, looking at the GNU ftp site, there isn't even a version 2.2
> available. There is a 2.1a which should have the fix (based on file
> dates - they don't use branches or tags in their cvs repository).
Huh? At
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bison/
I see
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I just tried building with Bison 2.1 on msvc, and it broke. For one
> thing, the .BAT file rejects 2.1 as broken instead of 2.0, which is
> obviously incorrect :-)
Actually, looking at the GNU ftp site, there isn't even a version 2.2
available. There is a 2.1a which should
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The attached patch seems to fix the build issue. Does it seem
>> acceptable/the right thing to do?
>
> No, it seems pretty bletcherous.
That's kind of what I thought :-)
>> Another option would be to just reject both 2.0 and 2.1 a
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The attached patch seems to fix the build issue. Does it seem
> acceptable/the right thing to do?
No, it seems pretty bletcherous.
> Another option would be to just reject both 2.0 and 2.1 as broken to
> build pg with, I guess...
In bison 2.3 (which
Magnus Hagander wrote:
I just tried building with Bison 2.1 on msvc, and it broke. For one
thing, the .BAT file rejects 2.1 as broken instead of 2.0, which is
obviously incorrect :-)
But the generated C file also does not compile causing the error on
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/93az
I just tried building with Bison 2.1 on msvc, and it broke. For one
thing, the .BAT file rejects 2.1 as broken instead of 2.0, which is
obviously incorrect :-)
But the generated C file also does not compile causing the error on
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/93az0868.aspx, because msvc
d
