From octave-maintainers-request at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu Fri Oct 27 16:11:23 2000 Subject: flex version From: "Lippert, Ross A." To: "'John W. Eaton'" Cc: "'octave-maintainers at octave dot org'" Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:10:31 -0400 In a recent build from the CVS I found otu I needed flex 2.5.4 or higher. This is clear because of a test that goes on in octave/src/lex.l on some macros: FLEX_SCANNER YY_FLEX_MAJOR_VERSION YY_FLEX_MINOR_VERSION I am not sure what config program sets these variables. Anyhow, bottom line is I should not have to alerted of this in the middle of the make, which currently I am. I should be told of the incorrect version during ./configure, right? -r -----Original Message----- From: John W. Eaton [mailto:jwe at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu] Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 3:36 PM To: Lippert, Ross A. Subject: RE: weirdness of Dec alphas On 27-Oct-2000, Lippert, Ross A. wrote: | OK, so let me get this straight: | | The best way for me to fix my alpha problem I don't know what the best fix is. I still don't know what the problem is. Your first report of a problem (other than the lapack one) simply said that BTW oct-time.cc has some trouble in it (checking whether something is defined instead of whether something is false, preventing a compile on the dec alpha). If it hasn't been fixed yet I'll send an easy patch for it. Look at it from my point of view. This is really vague, so how can I fix it? You don't even say what version of Octave you are using. I guessed latest 2.1.x or CVS since you sent your first message to octave-maintainers, in which case I don't think it is unreasonable to ask you to take a look at the CVS archive. Now you are saying BTW I checked the latest liboctave/oct-time.cc and it really does need lines of the form #ifdef (HAVE_TM_ZONE) #if (!HAVE_TM_ZONE) #undef HAVE_TM_ZONE #end if #end if which is a bit more specific, but it still doesn't tell me enough to know why I should make any change like this. What problem is it trying to solve? jwe