Re: [HACKERS] bison news

2002-08-21 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian writes: > This may be a case where we have to do some beta testing on our own. I > will grab the bison beta myself for my machine. I imagine that bison doesn't get a lot of beta testing, since people don't have a whole bunch of production grammars lying around that they want to upg

Re: [HACKERS] bison news

2002-08-20 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > OK, now that _a_ bison exists that works, how does this effect our > > release? I don't see preproc.[ch] in CVS. Do we need this new bison > > version on postgresql.org because Marc generates these as part of his > > install script?

Re: [HACKERS] bison news

2002-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > OK, now that _a_ bison exists that works, how does this effect our > release? I don't see preproc.[ch] in CVS. Do we need this new bison > version on postgresql.org because Marc generates these as part of his > install script? I don't think we want a

Re: [HACKERS] bison news

2002-08-20 Thread Bruce Momjian
OK, now that _a_ bison exists that works, how does this effect our release? I don't see preproc.[ch] in CVS. Do we need this new bison version on postgresql.org because Marc generates these as part of his install script? -

Re: [HACKERS] bison news

2002-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 11:10:01AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> BTW, I spent some time looking at the problem, and it seems the issue >> is not overrun of any bison internal table, but failure to compress the >> resulting "action table" into 32K entries.

Re: [HACKERS] bison news

2002-08-20 Thread Michael Meskes
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 11:10:01AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > BTW, I spent some time looking at the problem, and it seems the issue > is not overrun of any bison internal table, but failure to compress the > resulting "action table" into 32K entries. This means that the required Ouch! This of cour

Re: [HACKERS] bison news

2002-08-20 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I just got the latest beta and it compiles ecpg grammar correctly! This is good. Any word on when it will go to an official release? BTW, I spent some time looking at the problem, and it seems the issue is not overrun of any bison internal table, but

[HACKERS] bison news

2002-08-20 Thread Michael Meskes
I just got the latest beta and it compiles ecpg grammar correctly! I had to make one change to my source though as bison no longer accepts a comma inside the token list. Michael -- Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! -