[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments in %union processed incorrectly
|
From: |
Akim Demaille |
|
Subject: |
Re: Comments in %union processed incorrectly |
|
Date: |
03 Jan 2002 10:15:44 +0100 |
|
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) |
>>>>> "Hans" == Hans Aberg <address@hidden> writes:
>> The problem is that we now use an union to compute the alignments,
>> and only for that. It just happens that I do have a Location
>> class, which does have ctors. But now, because of this single
>> union, this is no longer proper C++: classes with ctors cannot be
>> stored in a union.
>>
>> As a result, my code no longer compiles.
Hans> I have looked a little on the skeleton code, and there are two
Hans> problems with union's and C++:
Hans> First, if one is using the %union option and C++ types, then a
Hans> proper C++ compiler should reject that. Now, Bison does not seem
Hans> to do anything with the types, except putting them in when
Hans> defined. %union seems to only require that all nonterminals are
Hans> typed; for that last part, I introduced a %typed option. Thus
Hans> %union { <body> } should be equivalent to %{ typedef union {
Hans> <body> } yystype; #define YYSTYPE yystype ... %} %typed ...
Hans, I would *really* appreciate if you could keep the threads
focused on their subject. I was *not* referring to what you just
wrote, and I made that *perfectly* clear.
We all know the other issue. It's just not the subject.
- Re: Comments in %union processed incorrectly, (continued)