jones@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Joel Jones) (07/05/89)
Hello:
I need to increase the size of the states for yacc for compiling a large
grammar (Ada). How can I do this?
My machine configuration is:
Harris HCX-7 (tahoe)
BSD 4.3
Yes I have RTFM, and anything else I could get my hands on.
Reply to
jones@enuxha.eas.asu.edu -or-
ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!jones
Thanks
Joel Jones, CS Grad Studentmccarrol@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark C. Carroll <MC>) (07/05/89)
Honestly, the best advice I can give you is to not use YACC. The GNU project wrote a YACC replacement called Bison. It's mostly YACC x compatible, but it can handle larger, more complicated grammars. If you'd like a copy, I can mail you a uuencoded tar file of the Bison distribution from the Pyramid Users Group archives. <MC> -- =| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC> |= =| mccarrol@topaz.rutgers.edu,...!rutgers!topaz!mccarrol |= =| "Your only obligation in any lifetime is to be true to yourself" |= =| -Richard Bach,_Illusions_ |=
djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) (07/11/89)
(Followups should probably go to comp.compilers, but the moderator is on vacation, so please bear with us.) From article <Jul.5.09.29.33.1989.23541@topaz.rutgers.edu>, by mccarrol@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark C. Carroll <MC>): > Honestly, the best advice I can give you is to not use YACC. The GNU > project wrote a YACC replacement called Bison. It's mostly YACC x > compatible, but it can handle larger, more complicated grammars. > Don't take the following question as a dig at GNU. I'm a satisfied customer. I've used GNU-emacs for over four years. It's now the only editor I feel really comfortable with. I ask the following for information only... A while back, I remember some kind of discussion over the copyright notice on BISON. Do I recall that if you compile it into a program -- a command-interpretter for example, the program is supposed to advertise BISON when it comes up? Or an I dreaming? I also seem to remember some question over whether any program which was prepared using BISON could be shipped without all the GNU baggage, because FSF copyrights the object code resulting from compiling the parser-procedure. I never did hear the last word on it. Can some gnuguru enlighten us?
pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) (07/12/89)
djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes: >[Does anything compiled with BISON need to say `BISON' on startup?] >[Must anything compiled with BISON be shipped with the GNU baggage?] I am not a lawyer, nor an employee of the free software foundation. What follows is only my understanding. The following applies ONLY TO PROGRAMS THAT ARE BEING DISTRIBUTED. Anything that is used strictly by you can follow any rules you like. * The GNU rules require that any *interactive* GNU software name itself and reference the GNU copyleft when it is started. Thus, GNU emacs must name itself (expert users can turn this off, if desired) and GNU cc (gcc) need not. * `Anything compiled with BISON' means two things. BISON is approximately a filter that takes TWO input files and produces an output file. One of the files that is normally included is a skeleton file written by GNU. That skeleton file is copylefted and appears in the output. Thus, the output is a `derived work'. If you use the default skeletons, then any code that is derived from or linked with the BISON output must follow the terms of the GNU copyleft. If you use your own skeleton, then you need not follow the GNU copyleft. If you build a parser using a standard BISON skeleton and then link it to a program that you distribute, then the sources FOR THE ENTIRE PROGRAM must be freely distributable. If you create a `.o' file for the parser and do NOT link it in -- the recipient must link it in -- then only the source for the parser must be freely distributable. That's my understanding. ;-D on ( Interesting GNU statements ) Pardo -- pardo@cs.washington.edu {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/14/89)
In article <8704@june.cs.washington.edu>, pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) writes: > If you build a parser using a standard BISON skeleton and then link it > to a program that you distribute, then the sources FOR THE ENTIRE > PROGRAM must be freely distributable. This basically means that BISON is useless for commercial software developers. I once asked this same question about the run-time libraries for GCC, and was told that there was no such restriction. So, the question is: do BISON and GCC have different restrictions? If so, why? If not, what's the real story? I'm not saying Stallman is wrong to have a restriction like this, I'd just like to know what it means. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | Th-th-th-that's all folks... Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | -- Mel Blanc Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | May 30 1908 - Jul 10 1989
bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (07/14/89)
In article <4996@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: In article <8704@june.cs.washington.edu>, pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) writes: If you build a parser using a standard BISON skeleton and then link it to a program that you distribute, then the sources FOR THE ENTIRE PROGRAM must be freely distributable. ...So, the question is: do BISON and GCC have different restrictions? If so, why? If not, what's the real story? I'm not saying Stallman is wrong to have a restriction like this, I'd just like to know what it means. As usual, you're asking and rumoring in the wrong place. If you were to ask an original question on gnu.gcc you'd probably find someone qualified to give you "the real story". Or better yet, read the GNU General Public License first, which addresses such matters directly. This issue arises quite frequently on gnu.gcc because people don't read the license first, and ask questions with answers that don't change from wave to wave. Don't ask me, because I'm not the right one to answer - I have nothing to do with the FSF, so I can't represent their position. It just irks me to see rumors being mongered in authoritative-sounding tones of voice, but actually in a knowledge vacuum.
evan@plx.UUCP (Evan Bigall) (07/15/89)
In article <BOB.89Jul14073332@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu> Bob Sutterfield <bob@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: > >As usual, you're asking and rumoring in the wrong place. If you were >to ask an original question on gnu.gcc you'd probably find someone >qualified to give you "the real story". The license is close to legaleze, and many people (myself at least) would like to know the story before they put the effort into uucp'g it all over and getting it running on thier machine (this can be a lot of work the first time you do it). Finally lots of people (at least myself again) don't get the gnu groups. I think a summary of the intent and rammifications of the license would be very usefull in this group. Evan -- Evan Bigall, Plexus Computers, San Jose, CA (408)943-2283 ...!sun!plx!evan "I barely have the authority to speak for myself, certainly not anybody else"