Re: Bug#196800: flex mustn't assume stdint.h is available on allplatforms
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:20:37 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org> said:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 08:40:47PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:22:17 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz
>> <dan@debian.org> said:
>>
>> >> You need to read up on your standards. The language called C is
>> >> defined by only one authoritative standard.
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E) (C)ISO/IEC
>> >>
>> >> Contents ix
>> >>
>> >> 5 This second edition cancels and replaces the first edition,
>> >> ISO/IEC 9899:1990, as amended and corrected by ISO/IEC
>> >> 9899/COR1:1994, ISO/IEC 9899/AMD1:1995, and ISO /IEC
>> >> 9899/COR2:1996.
>> >>
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> Thus, I need have no such qualifiers when talking abouit
>> >> conforming C implmentations.
>>
>> > Given the real-world deployment of probably at least a dozen
>> > major OSs which were 9899:1990 conformant and predate the
>> > 9899:1999 standard, I'd say that's a pretty useless point of
>> > view.
>>
>> OOh, I am blinded by the cogency of your arguments.
>>
>> C99 is over 3 years old.
> And still not fully implemented. Unstable only switched to a
> compiler with minimal C99 support some months ago. GCC has no
> roadmap for implementing the remaining C99 features so it may be
> years before they are available on free operating systems.
And? You seem to be implying (incorrectly), that flex requires
more of C99 than is already present in Debian and a post 2.95
gcc. The new flex has been compiled, and has all the test suites
succesfully compile, on all 11 architectures Debian supports.
>> For ancient platforms, use flex-old.
>>
>> Anyway, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and you can do
>> whatever you want with your packages and your code.
> I am somewhat distressed that the version of flex provided with
> Debian (I am assuming from the discussion) will not be usable for
> cross-platform development without constant care to use flex-old
> instead. We've finally persuaded binutils and GCC to move into the
> era of C90 source. I don't think we'll see C99 widely enough
> supported to write portable software using it until 2008 at least.
Again you raise a strawman. Flex comes with a plethora of
tests, and all the tests have always been passed. Flex works with all
11 architectures that comprise debian (we have a mysterious test
failure on the most recent m68k run, though I think it may have more
to do with the new gcc there than anything else).
Now, if you have any concrete objections as to why flex does
not work in Debian, please feeel free to point them out. If you
merely want to grumble about how flex may not work until 2008,
without providing a basis for such grumplings, I am sure I can't help
you there.
manoj
--
Remember: While root can do most everything, there are certain
privileges that only a partner can grant. Telsa Gwynne
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: