Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: gram.y PROBLEM with UNDER

From: Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Chris Bitmead <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com>, Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: gram.y PROBLEM with UNDER
Date: 2000-05-26 01:14:09
Message-ID: 392DCFE1.903E8B2D@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> State 17 contains 1 shift/reduce conflict.
> State 257 contains 1 shift/reduce conflict.
> State 359 contains 4 shift/reduce conflicts.
> State 595 contains 1 shift/reduce conflict.
> State 1106 contains 2 reduce/reduce conflicts.
> State 1260 contains 127 shift/reduce conflicts.
> State 1484 contains 2 reduce/reduce conflicts.
> State 1485 contains 2 reduce/reduce conflicts.
> State 1486 contains 2 reduce/reduce conflicts.
> 
> If you don't get rid of those then your parser will behave in surprising
> ways.  So far you have noticed the fallout from only one of those
> conflicts, but every one of them is a potential bug.  Be advised that
> gram.y patches that create unresolved conflicts will *not* be accepted.

I thought shift/reduce conflicts were part and parcel of most language
syntaxes. reduce/reduce being rather more naughty. The standard syntax
already produces 95 shift/reduce conflicts. Can you clarify about
unresolved conflicts not being accepted?

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin LoDate: 2000-05-26 01:21:40
Subject: [DONE] PostgreSQL-7.0 binary for WinNT
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-05-26 01:00:07
Subject: Re: \dS and \df <pattern> crashing psql

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group