[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RFC: build: be robust to missing flex

From: Akim Demaille
Subject: Re: RFC: build: be robust to missing flex
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:43:21 +0200

[This started in bison-patches].

Le 27 mars 2012 à 16:27, Stefano Lattarini a écrit :

> On 03/27/2012 04:16 PM, Akim Demaille wrote:
>> diff --git a/ b/
>> index 622da5d..5c97683 100644
>> --- a/
>> +++ b/
>> @@ -110,6 +110,9 @@ AC_SUBST([YACC_LIBRARY])
>> # Checks for programs.
>> +if $LEX --version 2>/dev/null | $EGREP 'f?lex 2\.5\.3' >/dev/null; then :; 
>> else
>> +  AC_MSG_ERROR([flex 2.5.3* is required])
>> +fi
> I think the best fix in the long term would be to enhance AC_PROG_LEX to set
> a variable telling whether $LEX is flex or not (similarly to what is done by
> AC_PROG_CC etc.).  The Bison's configure could simply use this variable to
> determine whether a good-enough flex has been found.
> Would you think it worthwhile to submit a patch to Autoconf before 2.69 gets
> released?

hi Stefano,

What do you think about this?  If this suits Autoconfers, I can
provide a more complete patch for Autoconf.  And if good enough,
AC_PROG_YACC will follow with Bison.

I confess I am a bit frustrated to define FLEX to yes/'', as I'd
be happy to use $(FLEX) in my Makefiles, but that's ok.  It hurts
much more in the context of Bison, since the command line behavior
is quite different in that case, so defining $(YACC) to be
'bison' and $(BISON) to be yes will probably be a bit weird.

Attachment: 0001-build-flex.m4.patch
Description: Binary data

Attachment: 0002-build-flex.m4-quote-properly.patch
Description: Binary data

Attachment: 0003-build-flex.m4-check-for-Flex.patch
Description: Binary data

Attachment: 0004-build-require-Flex.patch
Description: Binary data

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]