Re: What bison versions are installed on buildfarm machines? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: What bison versions are installed on buildfarm machines?
Date
Msg-id 3910.24.211.165.134.1136226612.squirrel@www.dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to What bison versions are installed on buildfarm machines?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: What bison versions are installed on buildfarm machines?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane said:
> Is there any way to find out $subject?  I see that several of the
> buildfarm machines are choking on a patch I committed yesterday:
>
> guc-file.l: In function `ProcessConfigFile':
> guc-file.l:162: error: `YY_FLUSH_BUFFER' undeclared (first use in this
> function) guc-file.l:162: error: (Each undeclared identifier is
> reported only once guc-file.l:162: error: for each function it appears
> in.)
> make[4]: *** [guc.o] Error 1
>
> YY_FLUSH_BUFFER is documented as a standard macro in bison 1.875, which
> is the oldest version we officially support.  But I'm prepared to
> change it if there is another way that would work with a wider range of
> bison versions.
>

Some months ago we put in a feature that allows you to see the log of all
stages, not just the stage that failed. Not all buildfarm members have yet
been updated to that release, unfortunately, so you won't see it on every
details page.

Among those with this failure that have updated is rook.  See the stage logs
here:
http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=rook&dt=2006-01-02%2011:39:01
the "config" link is the config.log file configure produces, and the
"configure" link is its stdout.

configure doesn't actually report the bison version, but it does complain if
the version is less than 1.875, and I don't see that on rook.

cheers

andrew




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jon Jensen
Date:
Subject: Re: Why don't we allow DNS names in pg_hba.conf?
Next
From: Mike Rylander
Date:
Subject: Re: Why don't we allow DNS names in pg_hba.conf?