Re: PATCH: 3.2.0b5 config parser fixes

"Joe R. Jah" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.web.htdig.devel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Gilles Detillieux wrote:

> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:35:53 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Gilles Detillieux <[email protected]>
> To: Joe R. Jah <[email protected]>
> Cc: "ht://Dig developers list" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [htdig-dev] PATCH: 3.2.0b5 config parser fixes
> 
> According to Joe R. Jah:
> > patch -p0 < ../patch/config_parser.0
> > patching file `htcommon/conf_lexer.lxx'
> > patching file `htcommon/conf_parser.yxx'
> > Hunk #4 FAILED at 254.
> > 1 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to htcommon/conf_parser.yxx.rej
> 
> That hunk failed because I built the patch against the CVS version of
> conf_parser.yxx, not the version in 3.2.0b5.  Back in November, Lachlan
> changed the printf in yyerror() from
> 
>    printf ("%s\nIn line %d\n",s,yylineno);
> 
> to
> 
>    fprintf (stderr, "%s\nIn line %d\n",s,yylineno);
> 
> so the patch program choked on the hunk that patches yyerror().  To make
> the config_parser.0 patch compatible with 3.2.0b5, you'd need to make
> the reverse change to that line (prefixed by "-") in the patch.

I believe we should make the patches against virgin 3.2.0b5; alternatively
we should indicate to what snapshot they apply.  Many people do not
download weekly snapshots, and use the patches to upgrade 3.2.0b5.
I plead guilty, until a few minutes ago;)

I see that except one, the patches in the patch site have not been
committed to 3.2.0b5-20040418; when will they be committed?

> > Manually applied the rejected hunk, but:
> > 
> > conf_parser.cxx: In function `int yy_do_parse(yystack *)':
> > conf_parser.cxx:287: warning: suggest parentheses around assignment used
> > as truth value
> > conf_parser.cxx:403: `aConf' undeclared (first use this function)
> > conf_parser.cxx:403: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> > conf_parser.cxx:403: for each function it appears in.)
> > conf_parser.cxx:334: warning: label `yyerrlab' defined but not used
> > conf_parser.cxx:329: warning: label `yynewerror' defined but not used
> > conf_parser.cxx: At top level:
> > conf_parser.cxx:2: warning: `char yysccsid[43]' defined but not used
> > gmake[1]: *** [conf_parser.lo] Error 1
> 
> That's odd.  Did your system use yacc or bison to build conf_parser.cxx
> from the .yxx source?  Which version of this tool do you have?  The config
> parser relies on the "#define YYPARSE_PARAM aConf" statement to get bison
> to use aConf as the argument to yyparse(), so the declaration is supposed
> to be auto-generated.  I guess for completeness, the patch would need to
> include the autogenerated *.h and *.cxx files as well.

My system used yacc; it's time stamp is relatively recent:

  -r-xr-xr-x  1 bin  bin  54144 Jul 17  2003 /usr/bin/yacc

I also reconfigured with GNU Bison version 1.28; this is what I got:(

sed '/^#/ s|y\.tab\.c|conf_parser.cxx|' y.tab.c >conf_parser.cxxt && mv conf_parser.cxxt conf_parser.cxx
sed: y.tab.c: No such file or directory
gmake[1]: *** [conf_parser.cxx] Error 1
gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/tmp/htdig/htdig-3.2.0b5/htcommon'
gmake: *** [all-recursive] Error 1

Does it require a more recent version of Bison?

Regards,

Joe
-- 
     _/   _/_/_/       _/              ____________    __o
     _/   _/   _/      _/         ______________     _-\<,_
 _/  _/   _/_/_/   _/  _/                     ......(_)/ (_)
  _/_/ oe _/   _/.  _/_/ ah        [email protected]



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Robotic Monkeys at ThinkGeek
For a limited time only, get FREE Ground shipping on all orders of $35
or more. Hurry up and shop folks, this offer expires April 30th!
http://www.thinkgeek.com/freeshipping/?cpg=12297
_______________________________________________
ht://Dig Developer mailing list:
[email protected]
List information (subscribe/unsubscribe, etc.)
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/htdig-dev
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.