This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: eliminate warnings from arlex.c

From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at wasabisystems dot com>
To: "Ben Elliston" <bje at au1 dot ibm dot com>
Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: 07 Dec 2004 23:36:55 -0500
Subject: Re: eliminate warnings from arlex.c
References: <20041208030644.GA21738@namadgi><m34qixe9bo.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <20041208042454.GF21738@namadgi>

"Ben Elliston" <bje@au1.ibm.com> writes:

> > %option is specific to flex.  I personally don't think the cost of a
> > few warnings is enough to justify requiring flex here, particularly
> > since we don't distribute flex with the binutils.  But that is just
> > my opinion.
> 
> Don't binutils releases include the generated files?  Isn't it only
> developers that require host tools like flex?

Yes.  But lots of people do binutils development.  I have no problem
with requiring particular tools when it is useful.  But we should only
require a new tool for a sufficiently good reason. I'm not sure that
eliminating a few warnings is a sufficiently good reason.

Ian

Follow-Ups:
- Re: eliminate warnings from arlex.c
  - From: Ben Elliston

References:
- eliminate warnings from arlex.c
  - From: Ben Elliston
- Re: eliminate warnings from arlex.c
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: eliminate warnings from arlex.c
  - From: Ben Elliston

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]