braner@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Moshe Braner) (08/11/89)
Hi all. I sort of remember some versions of lex and yacc floating by in this group. I am suddenly in need of lex and yacc for a project on MS-DOS. Since the ST C compilers also use (or should use!) 16-bit ints, I would expect the same source to work for both. So, where do I get the source? ANd has anybody tried it on MS-DOS? (I still have my ST, but am paid to do some things on messy-dos. Please don't stone me, Atarians :-) - Moshe Braner Cornell Theory Center, 265 Olin Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 USA (607) 255-9401 <braner@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu> (INTERNET) <braner@crnlthry> (BITNET)
covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (08/17/89)
In article <8609@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, braner@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Moshe Braner) writes: > Hi all. > > I sort of remember some versions of lex and yacc floating by > in this group. I am suddenly in need of lex and yacc for a > project on MS-DOS. Since the ST C compilers also use (or should > use!) 16-bit ints, I would expect the same source to work for > both. So, where do I get the source? ANd has anybody tried it > on MS-DOS? (I still have my ST, but am paid to do some things > on messy-dos. Please don't stone me, Atarians :-) > > - Moshe Braner I have the same need for lex and yacc but for a different reason. There are many UNIX/C programs from the archives which require lex and/or yacc. and so, there are hard to port without having lex and/or yacc on the ST. so, are there any pd lex and yacc and awk which are fully compatible with the UNIX originals?? richard (gtephx!covertr) covert
silvert@cs.dal.ca (Bill Silvert) (09/10/89)
In article <4515e338.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: ... (quotes from Moshe Braner) > > I have the same need for lex and yacc but for a different reason. There >are many UNIX/C programs from the archives which require lex and/or yacc. >and so, there are hard to port without having lex and/or yacc on the ST. Lex and yacc generates C code, so you can always run them on a Unix box and port the C code (which is very bulky) to any machine which has a C compiler. You need to write a couple of routines like yywrap(), but these are pretty trivial (I think that yywrap() is the only function not defined in the output C code, and it can be a do-nothing -- it is a function loaded from llib.a if you don't write your own version). -- Bill Silvert, Habitat Ecology Division. Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth, NS, Canada B2Y 4A2 UUCP: ...!{uunet,watmath}!dalcs!biomel!bill Internet: biomel@cs.dal.CA BITNET: bs%dalcs@dalac.BITNET
agrusow@exunido.uucp (Michael Vishchers) (09/26/89)
In article <1989Sep10.115547.26577@cs.dal.ca> bill@biomel.UUCP writes: >In article <4515e338.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: >... (quotes from Moshe Braner) >> >> I have the same need for lex and yacc but for a different reason. There >>are many UNIX/C programs from the archives which require lex and/or yacc. >>and so, there are hard to port without having lex and/or yacc on the ST. [deleted] I haven't listened to the discussion so far, but if you need a PD lex or yacc for the ST, there should be no problem. I have heard of a PD yacc called "bison" (obviously a GNU port) floating around somewhere, and my port of flex (=lex) appeared in comp.binaries.atari.st only some weeks ago. There was a newer version of flex in comp.sources.unix recently, and I think you will have no trouble compiling it on the ST (e.g.,with Sozobon). If you cannot get at these goodies, feel free to contact me and I will send you a disk. Michael ______________________________________________________________________ / Michael Vishchers | History repeats itself.\ | agrusow@exunido.uucp | Has to. | | | No one listens. | | (I think) | (steve turner) | \______________________________________________________________________/ / Home address:: Frohnhauser Str. 233 D-4300 Essen 1 West-Germany\ ________________________________________________________________________