[Olsr-users] compile error in olsrd-0.5.6-r3

Patrick McCarty (spam-protected)
Sat Jan 31 00:44:33 CET 2009

I hadn't played with the new patch. And I agree I also would not
consider it a bug. I simply was relating my personal experience
wherein Bison was the cause of my compile troubles, specifically on
BSD. So, I have no technical point other than using other versions of
bison fixed the problem.

To be clear, I didn't blame OLSR for any of that, and I apologize if
you felt that was bashing.


On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Bernd Petrovitsch <(spam-protected)> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 19:46 -0500, Patrick McCarty wrote:
>> That's good news. Bison was the cause of some breakage on some
> Not really. I read one mail of a reviewer - the only one I saw - of the
> replacement code and judging from that it's probably much safer to just
> revert that "patch".
>> particular BSD builds. This should help make things more compatible.
> That is also plain simply wrong - that breakage is not even a "bug" in
> the widest sense as it may happen on handwritten code too. It's just
> that newer gcc's tend to have better optimizers and checking so that
> issues in "old code" are raised.
> Can we please stop technically unfounded bison, flex and other code
> generator tool bashing (for whatever reason) without any substantial
> technical points.
> For the protocol:
> - the warnings there (and the perl/sed/... snippets to cure those) were
>  introduced by me to get an idea if and how good the generated code is.
>  Given the age of these tools (and their predecessors yacc and lex) and
>  portability requirements for the generated code, it is far better (and
>  more readable!) than lots of handwritten code I saw in my life.
> - at that time, release didn't had an -Werror (and several warnings)
>  activated because otherwise the handwritten code also had lots of
>  warnings (more than the generated ones).
> - -Werror was activated in the development to force people to think.
>  But it was disabled for releases - just because it would break on some
>  too old or too new gcc version somewhere.
> - at some point in time all warnings != -Werror were activated because
>  the code triggering the warnings were fixed.
> - someone (I don't know who and/or when later on) activated -Werror also
>  for releases.
> So it's IMHO just a question of time that old release (with -Werror)
> plain simply won't build on too new gcc's (and that may happen on
> handwritten code too).
> So please can I have any technical, valid and sane reason, which class
> of problems is solved by replacing the use of old and proven code
> generators with handwritten code?
> I can't see or even think of any.
> [ Fullquote deleted. Can we stop <pleonasm>unreadable full
> quoting</pleonasm> too. Thank you.]
>        Bernd, fed up with repeatedly technically unfounded bashing
> --
> Firmix Software GmbH                   http://www.firmix.at/
> mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
>          Embedded Linux Development and Services
> --
> Olsr-users mailing list
> (spam-protected)
> http://lists.olsr.org/mailman/listinfo/olsr-users

More information about the Olsr-users mailing list