- Currently Bison assumes 8-bit bytes (i.e. that UCHAR_MAX is
- 255). It also assumes that the 8-bit character encoding is
- the same for the invocation of 'bison' as it is for the
- invocation of 'cc', but this is not necessarily true when
- people run bison on an ASCII host and then use cc on an EBCDIC
- host. I don't think these topics are worth our time
- addressing (unless we find a gung-ho volunteer for EBCDIC or
- PDP-10 ports :-) but they should probably be documented
- somewhere.
-
-* Using enums instead of int for tokens.
-Paul suggests:
-
- #ifndef YYTOKENTYPE
- # if defined (__STDC__) || defined (__cplusplus)
- /* Put the tokens into the symbol table, so that GDB and other debuggers
- know about them. */
- enum yytokentype {
- FOO = 256,
- BAR,
- ...
- };
- /* POSIX requires `int' for tokens in interfaces. */
- # define YYTOKENTYPE int
- # endif
- #endif
- #define FOO 256
- #define BAR 257
- ...
-
-* Output directory
-Akim:
-
-| I consider this to be a bug in bison:
-|
-| /tmp % mkdir src
-| /tmp % cp ~/src/bison/tests/calc.y src
-| /tmp % mkdir build && cd build
-| /tmp/build % bison ../src/calc.y
-| /tmp/build % cd ..
-| /tmp % ls -l build src
-| build:
-| total 0
-|
-| src:
-| total 32
-| -rw-r--r-- 1 akim lrde 27553 oct 2 16:31 calc.tab.c
-| -rw-r--r-- 1 akim lrde 3335 oct 2 16:31 calc.y
-|
-|
-| Would it be safe to change this behavior to something more reasonable?
-| Do you think some people depend upon this?
-
-Jim:
-
-Is it that behavior documented?
-If so, then it's probably not reasonable to change it.
-I've Cc'd the automake list, because some of automake's
-rules use bison through $(YACC) -- though I'll bet they
-all use it in yacc-compatible mode.
-
-Pavel:
-
-Hello, Jim and others!
-
-> Is it that behavior documented?
-> If so, then it's probably not reasonable to change it.
-> I've Cc'd the automake list, because some of automake's
-> rules use bison through $(YACC) -- though I'll bet they
-> all use it in yacc-compatible mode.
-
-Yes, Automake currently used bison in Automake-compatible mode, but it
-would be fair for Automake to switch to the native mode as long as the
-processed files are distributed and "missing" emulates bison.
-
-In any case, the makefiles should specify the output file explicitly
-instead of relying on weird defaults.
-
-> | src:
-> | total 32
-> | -rw-r--r-- 1 akim lrde 27553 oct 2 16:31 calc.tab.c
-> | -rw-r--r-- 1 akim lrde 3335 oct 2 16:31 calc.y
-
-This is not _that_ ugly as it seems - with Automake you want to put
-sources where they belong - to the source directory.
-
-> | This is not _that_ ugly as it seems - with Automake you want to put
-> | sources where they belong - to the source directory.
->
-> The difference source/build you are referring to is based on Automake
-> concepts. They have no sense at all for tools such as bison or gcc
-> etc. They have input and output. I do not want them to try to grasp
-> source/build. I want them to behave uniformly: output *here*.
-
-I realize that.
-
-It's unfortunate that the native mode of Bison behaves in a less uniform
-way than the yacc mode. I agree with your point. Bison maintainters may
-want to fix it along with the documentation.
+** Discuss about %printer/%destroy in the case of C++.
+It would be very nice to provide the symbol classes with an operator<<
+and a destructor. Unfortunately the syntax we have chosen for
+%destroy and %printer make them hard to reuse. For instance, the user
+is invited to write something like
+
+ %printer { debug_stream() << $$; } <my_type>;
+
+which is hard to reuse elsewhere since it wants to use
+"debug_stream()" to find the stream to use. The same applies to
+%destroy: we told the user she could use the members of the Parser
+class in the printers/destructors, which is not good for an operator<<
+since it is no longer bound to a particular parser, it's just a
+(standalone symbol).
+
+** Rename LR0.cc
+as lr0.cc, why upper case?
+
+** bench several bisons.
+Enhance bench.pl with %b to run different bisons.
+
+* Various
+** Warnings
+Warnings about type tags that are used in printer and dtors, but not
+for symbols?
+
+** YYERRCODE
+Defined to 256, but not used, not documented. Probably the token
+number for the error token, which POSIX wants to be 256, but which
+Bison might renumber if the user used number 256. Keep fix and doc?
+Throw away?
+
+Also, why don't we output the token name of the error token in the
+output? It is explicitly skipped:
+
+ /* Skip error token and tokens without identifier. */
+ if (sym != errtoken && id)
+
+Of course there are issues with name spaces, but if we disable we have
+something which seems to be more simpler and more consistent instead
+of the special case YYERRCODE.
+
+ enum yytokentype {
+ error = 256,
+ // ...
+ };
+
+
+We could (should?) also treat the case of the undef_token, which is
+numbered 257 for yylex, and 2 internal. Both appear for instance in
+toknum:
+
+ const unsigned short int
+ parser::yytoken_number_[] =
+ {
+ 0, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264,
+
+while here
+
+ enum yytokentype {
+ TOK_EOF = 0,
+ TOK_EQ = 258,
+
+so both 256 and 257 are "mysterious".
+
+ const char*
+ const parser::yytname_[] =
+ {
+ "\"end of command\"", "error", "$undefined", "\"=\"", "\"break\"",
+
+
+** YYFAIL
+It is seems to be *really* obsolete now, shall we remove it?
+
+** yychar == yyempty_
+The code in yyerrlab reads:
+
+ if (yychar <= YYEOF)
+ {
+ /* Return failure if at end of input. */
+ if (yychar == YYEOF)
+ YYABORT;
+ }
+
+There are only two yychar that can be <= YYEOF: YYEMPTY and YYEOF.
+But I can't produce the situation where yychar is YYEMPTY here, is it
+really possible? The test suite does not exercise this case.
+
+This shows that it would be interesting to manage to install skeleton
+coverage analysis to the test suite.
+
+** Table definitions
+It should be very easy to factor the definition of the various tables,
+including the separation bw declaration and definition. See for
+instance b4_table_define in lalr1.cc. This way, we could even factor
+C vs. C++ definitions.
+
+* From lalr1.cc to yacc.c
+** Single stack
+Merging the three stacks in lalr1.cc simplified the code, prompted for
+other improvements and also made it faster (probably because memory
+management is performed once instead of three times). I suggest that
+we do the same in yacc.c.
+
+** yysyntax_error
+The code bw glr.c and yacc.c is really alike, we can certainly factor
+some parts.
+
+* Header guards
+
+From François: should we keep the directory part in the CPP guard?
+
+
+* Yacc.c: CPP Macros
+
+Do some people use YYPURE, YYLSP_NEEDED like we do in the test suite?
+They should not: it is not documented. But if they need to, let's
+find something clean (not like YYLSP_NEEDED...).
+
+* Report
+
+** Figures
+Some statistics about the grammar and the parser would be useful,
+especially when asking the user to send some information about the
+grammars she is working on. We should probably also include some
+information about the variables (I'm not sure for instance we even
+specify what LR variant was used).
+
+** GLR
+How would Paul like to display the conflicted actions? In particular,
+what when two reductions are possible on a given lookahead token, but one is
+part of $default. Should we make the two reductions explicit, or just
+keep $default? See the following point.
+
+** Disabled Reductions
+See `tests/conflicts.at (Defaulted Conflicted Reduction)', and decide
+what we want to do.
projects / bison.git / blobdiff