public inbox for binutils@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [patch] prevent build warnings from arlex.l and syslex.l
@ 2011-04-05 18:11 John Marino
  2011-04-06  5:16 ` Alan Modra
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: John Marino @ 2011-04-05 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: binutils

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 386 bytes --]

Last week I patch I submitted that prevented ld/ldlex.l from emitting a 
warning during the build process was committed:

http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/ld/ldlex.l.diff?cvsroot=src&r1=1.50&r2=1.51

It turns out that binutils/arlex.l and binutils/syslex.l have exactly 
the same problem.  The attached patch will silence these warnings on 
those files too.

Regards,
John


[-- Attachment #2: xxlex.l.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 558 bytes --]

diff --git a/binutils/arlex.l b/binutils/arlex.l
index aeac391..36e99ac 100644
--- a/binutils/arlex.l
+++ b/binutils/arlex.l
@@ -31,7 +31,9 @@
 #include "libiberty.h"
 #include "arparse.h"
 
+#ifndef YY_NO_UNPUT
 #define YY_NO_UNPUT
+#endif
 
 extern int yylex (void);
 
diff --git a/binutils/syslex.l b/binutils/syslex.l
index 7e3f298..759462c 100644
--- a/binutils/syslex.l
+++ b/binutils/syslex.l
@@ -30,7 +30,9 @@
 #endif
 #include "sysinfo.h"
 
+#ifndef YY_NO_UNPUT
 #define YY_NO_UNPUT
+#endif
 
 #ifndef yywrap
 static int yywrap (void) { return 1; }

[-- Attachment #3: 2011_04_05_changelog.binutils.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 119 bytes --]

2011-04-05  John Marino  <binutils@marino.st>

	* arlex.l: prevent redefinition of YY_NO_UNPUT.
	* syslex.l: likewise.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [patch] prevent build warnings from arlex.l and syslex.l
  2011-04-05 18:11 [patch] prevent build warnings from arlex.l and syslex.l John Marino
@ 2011-04-06  5:16 ` Alan Modra
  2011-04-06  5:22   ` John Marino
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Alan Modra @ 2011-04-06  5:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: John Marino; +Cc: binutils

On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 08:11:44PM +0200, John Marino wrote:
> +#ifndef YY_NO_UNPUT
>  #define YY_NO_UNPUT
> +#endif

Is there any reason to not use this instead?
#undef YY_NO_UNPUT
#define YY_NO_UNPUT

-- 
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [patch] prevent build warnings from arlex.l and syslex.l
  2011-04-06  5:16 ` Alan Modra
@ 2011-04-06  5:22   ` John Marino
  2011-04-08  6:36     ` John Marino
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: John Marino @ 2011-04-06  5:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: John Marino, binutils

Alan Modra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 08:11:44PM +0200, John Marino wrote:
>> +#ifndef YY_NO_UNPUT
>>  #define YY_NO_UNPUT
>> +#endif
> 
> Is there any reason to not use this instead?
> #undef YY_NO_UNPUT
> #define YY_NO_UNPUT
> 


It's supposed to be defined by the first line "%option nounput"
If anything, the line "#undef YY_NO_UNPUT" should be deleted, however 
Nick wanted to stick with this method in case someone has a broken 
implementation of lex.

He's the one that committed the ldlex.l change on March 28.

Regards,

John

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [patch] prevent build warnings from arlex.l and syslex.l
  2011-04-06  5:22   ` John Marino
@ 2011-04-08  6:36     ` John Marino
  2011-04-08 15:29       ` Nick Clifton
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: John Marino @ 2011-04-08  6:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: binutils

John Marino wrote:
> Alan Modra wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 08:11:44PM +0200, John Marino wrote:
>>> +#ifndef YY_NO_UNPUT
>>>  #define YY_NO_UNPUT
>>> +#endif
>>
>> Is there any reason to not use this instead?
>> #undef YY_NO_UNPUT
>> #define YY_NO_UNPUT
>>
> 
> 
> It's supposed to be defined by the first line "%option nounput"
> If anything, the line "#undef YY_NO_UNPUT" should be deleted, however 
> Nick wanted to stick with this method in case someone has a broken 
> implementation of lex.
> 
> He's the one that committed the ldlex.l change on March 28.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John

Is there anything holding this patch back from being committed?  I just 
don't want it fall between the cracks.

Thanks,
John

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: [patch] prevent build warnings from arlex.l and syslex.l
  2011-04-08  6:36     ` John Marino
@ 2011-04-08 15:29       ` Nick Clifton
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Nick Clifton @ 2011-04-08 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: John Marino; +Cc: binutils

Hi John,

> Is there anything holding this patch back from being committed? I just
> don't want it fall between the cracks.

Just slowness on my part.  I have now applied the patch.

Cheers
   Nick


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2011-04-08 15:29 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-04-05 18:11 [patch] prevent build warnings from arlex.l and syslex.l John Marino
2011-04-06  5:16 ` Alan Modra
2011-04-06  5:22   ` John Marino
2011-04-08  6:36     ` John Marino
2011-04-08 15:29       ` Nick Clifton

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).