Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> Gregory Stark wrote:
>>
>>> flex 2.5.33
>>>
>
>
>> Aha! Known to be broken, iirc. Use flex 2.5.4a
>>
>
> No, the known breakages with flex were years ago; 2.5.33 has only been
> out a year. I think 2.5.31 might have been the one we saw big problems
> with (there's a note warning against using it on the flex sourceforge
> page).
>
> I think most of us do still use 2.5.4a, but it'd probably be a good idea
> to check out 2.5.33 and see if it can be made to not generate warnings.
> I'm certainly tired of seeing the warnings 2.5.4a creates ...
>
It gives me the same warnings that Greg reported.
I guess we could conditionally add prototypes for those functions to all
the .l files if you really want to move to 2.5.33. Kinda yucky, though.
cheers
andrew
