X-Git-Url: https://git.saurik.com/bison.git/blobdiff_plain/df72984aa586c427c5f2acb2c8aade92c291a419..dd735e4ee62c176761d8128063b0e0027fc239c5:/TODO

diff --git a/TODO b/TODO
index ae0ddb66..9dbd6b42 100644
--- a/TODO
+++ b/TODO
@@ -1,5 +1,97 @@
 -*- outline -*-
 
+* Various
+** 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?
+
+** YYFAIL
+It is seems to be *really* obsolete now, shall we remove it?
+
+** YYBACKUP
+There is no test about it, no examples in the doc, and I'm not sure
+what it should look like.  For instance what follows crashes.
+
+  %error-verbose
+  %debug
+  %pure-parser
+  %code {
+  # include <stdio.h>
+  # include <stdlib.h>
+  # include <assert.h>
+
+    static void yyerror (const char *msg);
+    static int yylex (YYSTYPE *yylval);
+  }
+  %%
+  exp:
+    'a'   { printf ("a: %d\n", $1); }
+  | 'b'   { YYBACKUP('a', 123); }
+  ;
+  %%
+  static int
+  yylex (YYSTYPE *yylval)
+  {
+    static char const input[] = "b";
+    static size_t toknum;
+    assert (toknum < sizeof input);
+    *yylval = (toknum + 1) * 10;
+    return input[toknum++];
+  }
+
+  static void
+  yyerror (const char *msg)
+  {
+    fprintf (stderr, "%s\n", msg);
+  }
+
+  int
+  main (void)
+  {
+    yydebug = !!getenv("YYDEBUG");
+    return yyparse ();
+  }
+
+** 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
+In lalr1.cc we invoke it with the translated lookahead (yytoken), and
+yacc.c uses yychar.  I don't see why.
+
+** yysyntax_error
+The use of switch to select yyfmt in lalr1.cc seems simpler than
+what's done in yacc.c.
+
 * Header guards
 
 From Franc,ois: should we keep the directory part in the CPP guard?
@@ -18,10 +110,6 @@ find something clean (not like YYLSP_NEEDED...).
 Before releasing, make sure the documentation ("Understanding your
 parser") refers to the current `output' format.
 
-* lalr1.cc
-** I18n
-Catch up with yacc.c.
-
 * Report
 
 **  GLR
@@ -96,9 +184,6 @@ must be in the scanner: we must not parse what is in a switched off
 part of %if.  Akim Demaille thinks it should be in the parser, so as
 to avoid falling into another CPP mistake.
 
-** -D, --define-muscle NAME=VALUE
-To define muscles via cli.  Or maybe support directly NAME=VALUE?
-
 ** XML Output
 There are couple of available extensions of Bison targeting some XML
 output.  Some day we should consider including them.  One issue is
@@ -199,15 +284,6 @@ It is unfortunate that there is a total order for precedence.  It
 makes it impossible to have modular precedence information.  We should
 move to partial orders (sounds like series/parallel orders to me).
 
-** Correlation b/w precedence and associativity
-Also, I fail to understand why we have to assign the same
-associativity to operators with the same precedence.  For instance,
-why can't I decide that the precedence of * and / is the same, but the
-latter is nonassoc?
-
-If there is really no profound motivation, we should find a new syntax
-to allow specifying this.
-
 ** RR conflicts
 See if we can use precedence between rules to solve RR conflicts.  See
 what POSIX says.