bison 1.75 installed ...

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:

let me know if there are any problems with it ....

<grouse>
Other than the fact that it's about a factor of 16 slower than bison
1.28, while not offering any substantial gain in functionality? If I
were a Bison maintainer, I'd hang my head in shame.
</grouse>

All PG regression tests pass here with 1.75-built parsers.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

All PG regression tests pass here with 1.75-built parsers.

Same here on a Red Hat 7.3 system.

In case anyone is interested, I made a bison 1.75 rpm based on the 1.35 source
rpm from RH7.3. It can be found here along with an updated src RPM:

http://www.joeconway.com/bison-1.75-custom.1.i686.rpm
http://www.joeconway.com/bison-1.75-custom.1.src.rpm

Joe

Tom Lane wrote:

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:

let me know if there are any problems with it ....

<grouse>
Other than the fact that it's about a factor of 16 slower than bison
1.28, while not offering any substantial gain in functionality? If I
were a Bison maintainer, I'd hang my head in shame.
</grouse>

All PG regression tests pass here with 1.75-built parsers.

16x is the grammer output generation, not the actual parsing of the SQL,
right? There are cases where slow output generation can lead to faster
parsing, right? Let's hope that happened.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073