| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Lo | 2000-05-26 01:21:40 | [DONE] PostgreSQL-7.0 binary for WinNT |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-26 01:00:07 | Re: \dS and \df <pattern> crashing psql |