Re: bison-2.1

[Joel E. Denny]

For some reason, I decided to give a little more thought to this thread. 
I'm not sure anyone cares, but I thought I'd point out some things.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Joel E. Denny wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> > "Joel E. Denny" <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > >   int* p = malloc(n*sizeof(int));
> > >
> > > Are you saying g++-4 and g++-5 don't catch it as they should?

I just tried g++ 4.0.1, which is the current release series.  It catches 
the above missing cast as it should.

Someone mentioned g++-5 earlier in this thread.  I didn't think to 
question it before, but g++-5?  Is this a typo?

> > > Just out of curiosity, why is your test suite calling g++ for that test
> > > case anyway?
> >
> > Some people like to use C++ compilers when C compilers are called for.
> > Personally I don't think it's worth catering to such usage, but I
> > guess others disagree.
>
> I'm certainly guilty of using g++ when compiling bison-generated code...
> even from yacc.c and glr.c.  That seems necessary given that the C++
> skeletons aren't ready.  However, when building bison itself, I don't
> understand why g++ would be used.  I guess it's a moot point, but it's
> curious.

I now finally realize that make maintainer-check runs the test suite with 
g++.  This makes sense to me given that many users, such as myself, use 
bison's yacc.c and glr.c with C++.  Moreover, many of us will probably 
continue to do so long after the C++ skeletons are complete.  It takes a 
while to upgrade old code.

Who knows why, but I had it in my head that someone had actually 
configured with g++ in place of gcc for all of make and make check. 
That's what I was actually perplexed about.

Now that I understand maintainer-check, I'll be more careful with my test 
cases.

Sorry for the stupid questions.

Joel