This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] fix libxl build issues

To: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] fix libxl build issues
From: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:20:10 +0100
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:23:08 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4C977EC40200007800017BCD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Newsgroups: chiark.mail.xen.devel
References: <4C977EC40200007800017BCD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jan Beulich writes ("[Xen-devel] [PATCH] fix libxl build issues"):
> The flex/bison generated headers pointlessly depended on the
> corresponding source files. Use multiple-target pattern rules instead.

Your Makefile changes look sensible.  I'll test them.

> It would also have been nice if the minimal flex/bison versions needed
> to successfully build libxl were documented: neither flex 2.5.31 nor
> bison 2.1 (as found e.g. on SLE10) is sufficient.

I have no idea why SLE10 is using a version of flex which is

We haven't used features of flex and bison gratuitously.  The features
we have used are those which are necessary to produce lexers and
parsers which are 1. reentrant and 2. do not pollute the namespace of
the resulting library.  I think that it's quite reasonable to say that
if you want to modify the parser/lexer you need tools which are less
than five years old, say.

That if you don't it doesn't build properly even with the existing
files is a bug.

I do know that the versions of bison and flex in Debian stable are
good enough: that's bison 2.3 (June 2006) and flex 2.5.35 (August
2008).  It is very likely that substantially earlier versions will
work.  If someone wants to do a systematic test they are very welcome
to document the results but for now how about "not ancient" ?


Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>