Re: Bug#196800: flex mustn't assume stdint.h is available on allplatforms
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:51:14 +0200, Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> said:
> reopen 196800 thanks
> Cc'ed to debian-devel since this affects all software using flex.
OK.
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 06:24:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 01:01:58 +0200, Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>
>> said:
>>
>> > I got a compile error of mdk-1.0.1 (file mixlib/mix_scanner.c) on
>> > NetBSD/sparc-1.5 that comes from the fact that 2.5.31
>> > unconditionally adds an #include <stdint.h> but there is no
>> > /usr/include/stdint.h on this platform. flex 2.5.4 generates a C
>> > file that compiles without problems.
>>
>> Flex no longer has support for non conforming implementations; and
>> thus no longer has support for platforms that so not have stdint.h.
>> In other words, behaviour of flex scanners on non conforming
>> implementations is undefined.
>>
>> Please use flex-old for platforms where the implementation is not
>> up to date.
> these platforms include platforms like Solaris 9 ...
Which I donot care about. (Or is Solaris 9 now a re;eased
Debian architecture?)
>> > Severity grave since this is a regression from 2.5.4 that
>> > generates C files that don't compile on all platforms.
>>
>> This is not a regression, this is moving away from a standard which
>> is 14 years old, to one which is merely 4 years old.
> Even gcc 3.3 doesn't fully support C99.
So? This is a non sequitor.
You are talking about a non conforming implementation. The
behaviour of Flex is undefined.
>> Flex has also broken POSIX conformance, BTW, in favour of new
>> features; flex is now reentrant, and does not pollute use
>> namespace.
> The new flex includes features that break existing (f)lex files.
Yes, it does. Flex has broken backwards compatibility. This is
not a bug, but done deliberately, by design. A work around has been
put into place for applications and platforms that can't be changed
to use the new Flex -- a package called flex-old.
> The new flex creates C files that don't compile on many OS including
> the latest Solaris - IOW every software developer upgrading to the
> flex currently in unstable/testing silently drops support for many
> platforms.
> I don't know what the people currently developing flex are smoking,
> but these changes are definitely not OK.
In your opinion. Things change. Not everything evolves in a
nicely backwards compatible manner.
I am closing this report again, since this is not a bug. Your
opinion about the direction that Fle4x needs to go into is not a
reason for a bug. (Man, vi would be RC'd into non existence [well, as
well as emacs], were opinions enough to cause grave bugs to be
opened.
manoj
--
"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." Mark Twain
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: