Re: [HACKERS] CVS HEAD compile warning

2004-02-27 Thread tswan
> Tom Lane wrote: > > >> Red Hat's still shipping 2.5.4a according to a quick look... > > Well Red Hat's still ship Postgres 7.3.4 ... > > I'm not considering anymore RH to be up to date with various versions > :-( > > Gaetano > > Not to jump immediately to RH's defense, but Fedora Core 2 (current

Re: [HACKERS] CVS HEAD compile warning

2004-02-27 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> At this point I think our first question is whether flex 2.5.31 is >> correctly detecting a hole in the ecpg lexer rules that was missed by >> flex 2.5.4, or whether the warning is simply wrong. > Yes, that's it. The big problem seems to be that flex d

Re: [HACKERS] CVS HEAD compile warning

2004-02-26 Thread Michael Meskes
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 02:44:52AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I knew at the time that ecpg was the only one of our lexers in which > echo-to-stdout could conceivably be a reasonable default rule. But > since flex 2.5.4 did not complain, I went ahead and committed the > addition in ecpg as well as ev

Re: [HACKERS] CVS HEAD compile warning

2004-02-26 Thread Gaetano Mendola
Tom Lane wrote: Red Hat's still shipping 2.5.4a according to a quick look... Well Red Hat's still ship Postgres 7.3.4 ... I'm not considering anymore RH to be up to date with various versions :-( Gaetano ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner

Re: [HACKERS] CVS HEAD compile warning

2004-02-25 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hmm, maybe the change is that "-s" is now enabled by default. Right. I inserted "%option nodefault" into pgc.l (and all our other flex source files) a day or two ago, after realizing that it is a very effective tool for catching missed cases in a set o

Re: [HACKERS] CVS HEAD compile warning

2004-02-25 Thread Michael Meskes
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 05:22:59PM -0500, Neil Conway wrote: > /usr/bin/flex -o'pgc.c' pgc.l > pgc.l:979: warning, -s option given but default rule can be matched Hmm, maybe the change is that "-s" is now enabled by default. I just didn't find any mention of this in the docs and no option to enab

Re: [HACKERS] CVS HEAD compile warning

2004-02-25 Thread Tom Lane
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> That's interesting, because I get no such warning here. What version >> of flex are you using? (Mine is 2.5.4) > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/nconway]% flex --version > flex 2.5.31 Oh, that thing. We deliberately back

Re: [HACKERS] CVS HEAD compile warning

2004-02-25 Thread Neil Conway
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's interesting, because I get no such warning here. What version > of flex are you using? (Mine is 2.5.4) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/nconway]% flex --version flex 2.5.31 (The flex 2.5.31-22 debian package) -Neil ---(end of broad

Re: [HACKERS] CVS HEAD compile warning

2004-02-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Neil Conway wrote: > $ cd src/interfaces/ecpg > $ make > [ ... ] > bison -y -d preproc.y > mv -f y.tab.c ./preproc.c > mv -f y.tab.h ./preproc.h > /usr/bin/flex -o'pgc.c' pgc.l > pgc.l:979: warning, -s option given but default rule can be matched > FYI, I am not seeing this with my flex 2.5.4 an

Re: [HACKERS] CVS HEAD compile warning

2004-02-25 Thread Tom Lane
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > /usr/bin/flex -o'pgc.c' pgc.l > pgc.l:979: warning, -s option given but default rule can be matched That's interesting, because I get no such warning here. What version of flex are you using? (Mine is 2.5.4) regards, tom lane -

[HACKERS] CVS HEAD compile warning

2004-02-25 Thread Neil Conway
$ cd src/interfaces/ecpg $ make [ ... ] bison -y -d preproc.y mv -f y.tab.c ./preproc.c mv -f y.tab.h ./preproc.h /usr/bin/flex -o'pgc.c' pgc.l pgc.l:979: warning, -s option given but default rule can be matched -Neil ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP