YACC/Lex

[Rob Quill]

Thanks for your help with this and my previous email. I'm not going to
be using to parse anything so difficult as a whole language. I just
need it to parse some LTL formulae. The basic aim for what I am trying
to do is allow GDB to do some relatively simple model checking, which
assuming I can get it working efficiently should make debugging quite
a bit easier as the programmer can just check the properties of small
sections of code to see that they hold, and it means that, as it is
integrated into GDB, there is no need for a seperate tool for formal
verification.

Would I be right in saying that it wouldn't be OK to mix O'Caml and C
for GDB? (I'm almost certain I am, bt correct me if I'm not)

Thanks,
Rob

On 09/10/06, Michael Snyder <Michael.Snyder@palmsource.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 12:44 +0100, Rob Quill wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is it ok to use code generated by YACC and/or Lex in GDB? If not, what
> > alternatives are there?
>
> First of all, the open source / gnu / fsf equivalents are byacc (bison),
> and flex.  Bison and byacc are two independent implementations of a
> yacc equivalent.  If I remember correctly, gdb will work with bison but
> prefers byacc.  I'm not sure if it will work with yacc itself any more.
>
> If you cd to the gdb source directory and do "ls *.y", you will see
> that there are existing (b)yacc parsers for ada, c, java, fortran,
> pascal and modula-2, plus a few more.  There's also a separate lexer
> for ada, ada-lex.l.
>
> Look at the makefile to see how these get built, and then if you want to
> pursue it further, look at language.c and language.h.
>
> Michael
>
>