[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited
From: |
John |
Subject: |
Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:39:19 -0500 (EST) |
> One exception that I neglected to mention is that if
> the flex option for reentrant code is used, YY_G,
> the related structure, and the definitions of yyout
> etc. that use YY_G may be required.
Any code that explicitly references YY_G is broken. YY_G is an
internal macro, and subject to change.
- Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/24
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Paul Eggert, 2003/02/25
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/25
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Paul Eggert, 2003/02/25
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/25
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited,
John <=
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Paul Eggert, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26