From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Engster Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Compiled files without sources???? Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 01:15:07 +0200 Message-ID: <87pqkqqbyc.fsf@engster.org> References: <87tya82mv5.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ei1bzjwg.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <4E3133CE.7010101@cs.ucla.edu> <4E31F0B3.3030505@cs.ucla.edu> <87mxfw90oo.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87r558ms8j.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87zkjv33w3.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87sjpn8if0.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <87sjpm7lvt.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <878vrepc6g.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87mxfunx4h.fsf@gnus.org> <877h6yp652.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87tya2qg0x.fsf@engster.org> <87hb625b7r.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1312154187 4756 80.91.229.12 (31 Jul 2011 23:16:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 23:16:27 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 01 01:16:24 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QnfF7-0004vX-KU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 01:16:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45869 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QnfF7-0006QD-4g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 19:16:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:60492) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QnfF4-0006Pu-G7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 19:16:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QnfF3-0003AB-B8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 19:16:18 -0400 Original-Received: from v3-1008.vxen.de ([79.140.41.8]:44433) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QnfF2-00039w-IL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2011 19:16:17 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=randomsample.de; s=a; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To:From; bh=7OibDmKBfxuwtkNWNPdd+/p8E/ybzwe7/SuKG2MjwUw=; b=NQBMjn2lEkduaNg5uIJJ+i6cTUwk5tlXJ71bR7/jfLcBXLWkx8xx7gLIHoFcLKxa9i+LgD/yRb0ULpPqMIGfxboqUSQCQRYUPLLXGcL+0nvNevbuUBEQMWC6Im5lQdCv; Original-Received: from dslc-082-083-039-032.pools.arcor-ip.net ([82.83.39.32] helo=spaten) by v3-1008.vxen.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QnfF0-0006jf-Vb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 01:16:15 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87hb625b7r.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> (David Kastrup's message of "Mon, 01 Aug 2011 00:36:40 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-Received-From: 79.140.41.8 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:142613 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > David Engster writes: >> The compromise was to let grammar development happen in CEDET >> upstream. I did suggest this in good faith; in fact, it would have taken >> almost no work at all to commit the plain grammar files to Emacs >> trunk. But without Bovine and Wisent, the CEDET parser generators, those >> grammar files are practically useless; contrary to what was written on >> LWN/Slashdot/wherever, the grammars are not Bison compatible. To do any >> actual work with them, you need to get CEDET, and then you will get all >> the grammars anyway. > > Not the corresponding versions to what is included in Emacs. True. I was fixed on development, and so you would always work with the newest grammars form bzr (there are very few changes there anyway). The older ones are of course not lost, but we should have included them. I understand that. AFAIK the grammars used in Emacs are those from the CEDET 1.0 release. > Now Chong stated that he had to hand-edit the resulting grammars to make > them fit into what is included in Emacs. That seems like a bad idea > with regard to meeting the source obligations and maintainability. Yes. As you know, this was meant as a transitory period. I know this sounds silly after two years, but it's already much work just keeping CEDET working with Emacs24 development and fixing bugs which pop up on the mailing lists. And sometimes I also like to actually code something new. > So what would be entailed to let upstream CEDET generate compiled > grammars directly usable in Emacs? Why don't they work out of the box > when the parser runtime is ostensibly what is present in upstream > CEDET? Can the differences be factored out into variables? The most important change is the 8+3 file renaming; this is replicated in the file-rename branch. Also, the CEDET compilation process was complicated and dependant on autoloads from EIEIO classes and methods, which Emacs doesn't support and which therefore was also removed; Llu=EDs has written a completely new Makefile for that. I haven't tested yet if the grammars generated in the new branch work right away, but we should be close. I'm pretty sure there aren't any differences regarding the actual grammar rules. -David