[antlr-interest] Fwd: Reporting a bug in C Target
Jim Idle
jimi at temporal-wave.com
Fri Dec 11 08:13:28 PST 2009
The latest templates process the default parameter values correctly, I fixed that too - I need to fix Hudson so the snapshot gets built, but you can also get the templates from fisheye and just drop them in. The change is obvious and affect C.stg and AST.stg.
Jim
From: antlr-interest-bounces at antlr.org [mailto:antlr-interest-bounces at antlr.org] On Behalf Of Gokulakannan Somasundaram
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 1:40 AM
To: antlr-interest at antlr.org
Subject: [antlr-interest] Fwd: Reporting a bug in C Target
Missed the group....
Gokul.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007 at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] Reporting a bug in C Target
To: Jim Idle <jimi at temporal-wave.com>
Sure Jim. I have found my way around Maven and now i am able to build the tool.jar alone. I will use the current templates from the snapshot. I have also found that ANTLR is specifically disabling the default parameter values being assigned to the parameters passed to the rules. This functionality is present in C++(as you may know). But is there a reason why we are doing this?
Thanks,
Gokul.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Jim Idle <jimi at temporal-wave.com> wrote:
If you want to try it out then you will be able to download the snapshot release of the ANTLR tool later today, once I upgrade Hudson so that it builds it again. The runtime has not changed, just the templates.
Jim
From: Gokulakannan Somasundaram [mailto:gokul007 at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 2:36 AM
To: Jim Idle
Cc: David-Sarah Hopwood; antlr-interest at antlr.org
Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] Reporting a bug in C Target
Jim,
I read about the initialization rules and i agree with them. Thanks for fixing it so quickly.
Gokul.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Jim Idle <jimi at temporal-wave.com> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:54:51 -0800
"Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <gokul007 at gmail.com> wrote:
Assigning it to 0, will again cause trouble for C++ folks.
No it won't, because 0 is a valid (indeed, the preferred) way of writing
a null pointer constant in C++.
I think you misunderstood me. I said assigning 0 to a enum in C++ will throw a compiler error.
I didn't though :). See email about new initialization rules. I think that they are much mire in keeping with C and C++. More generally it makes the grammar programmer responsible for behaviour, which is in line with the rest of the C stuff.
David's point about C++ is correct though 0 == NULL is guranteed in ANSI C, evenbthough rhe compiler must work it out. Better to use NULL consistently and try to avoid adding to the billion dollars.
Jim
Gokul.
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.antlr.org/pipermail/antlr-interest/attachments/20091211/fdfb6ea9/attachment.html
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list