Re: [PATCH] tests: explicitly state that our lexers do not require unistd.h

[Stefano Lattarini]

On 03/06/2012 08:45 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Peter Rosin skrev 2012-03-06 08:38:
>> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-03-05 21:05:
>>
>>> I'd like to see a little addition squashed-in if you can: a new
>>> entry in 'tests/README' explaining that a "#define YY_NO_UNISTD_H"
>>> is needed in lex input files, and why it is so.
>>
>> Like this?
> 
> No, that wasn't quite right, but perhaps like this?
>
Almost.  Minor nits below.

> Cheers,
> Peter
> 
> diff --git a/tests/README b/tests/README
> index 42afa2c..5f7be89 100644
> --- a/tests/README
> +++ b/tests/README
> @@ -263,6 +263,18 @@ Do
>    directory, but use '$am_scriptdir' instead.  The complete list of
>    such "$am_...dir" variables can be found in tests/defs-static.in.
> 
> +  When writing input for lex, include the following in the definitions
> +  section
>
s/$/:/ here maybe?

> +    %{
> +    #define YY_NO_UNISTD_H 1
> +    %}
> +  to accomodate non-ANSI systems, since GNU flex generates code that
> +  includes unistd.h otherwise.  Also add
>
Ditto.

> +    %option never-interactive
> +  to the definitions section if the generated code is to be compiled
> +  by a C++ compiler, since the isatty(3) function from that same
> +  unistd.h header is required otherwise.
> +
I'd tweak this as follows, which reads marginally better to me:

  ... if the generated code is to be compiled by a C++ compiler, for
  similar reasons (i.e., the isatty(3) function from that same
  unistd.h header would be required otherwise).

ACK with or without those nits addressed (as they are mostly a matter
of taste).

Thanks,
  Stefano