Re: [PATCH] flex: upgrade to 2.6.2

[Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>]

On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 15:59 +0000, Ross Burton wrote:
> Patches dropped as they are merged upstream:
> - CVE-2016-6354.patch
> - 0002-avoid-c-comments-in-c-code-fails-with-gcc-6.patch
> - do_not_create_pdf_doc.patch
> 
> Apply a patch from github to simplify cross-compilation and not need a
> flex-native to bootstrap.

After rebasing my pending "UEFI/OVMF" patches I noticed that this
particular version update breaks compilation of acpica-native:

| obj/dtparserlex.o: In function `DtInitLexer':
| dtparserlex.c:(.text+0x10e7): undefined reference to `yy_scan_string'
| obj/prparserlex.o: In function `PrInitLexer':
| prparserlex.c:(.text+0x1327): undefined reference to `yy_scan_string'
| collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
| ../Makefile.rules:14: recipe for target 'obj/iasl' failed
| make[1]: *** [obj/iasl] Error 1
| make[1]: Leaving directory
'/fast/build/refkit/intel-corei7-64/tmp-glibc/work/x86_64-linux/acpica-native/20161222-r0/acpica-unix2-20161222/generate/unix/iasl'
| generate/unix/Makefile.common:25: recipe for target 'iasl' failed
| make: *** [iasl] Error 2
| WARNING: exit code 1 from a shell command.
| ERROR: Function failed: do_compile (log file is located
at /fast/build/refkit/intel-corei7-64/tmp-glibc/work/x86_64-linux/acpica-native/20161222-r0/temp/log.do_compile.32470)

That still occurs also after updating to the latest upstream acpica.

I searched for the error and found this about yy_scan_string:

        In case anyone else is getting symbol is not defined or other
        such errors when trying this: remember to include %option
        reentrant in the lexer file.
        
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1907847/how-to-use-yy-scan-string-in-lex?ref=driverlayer.com/web

I tried that and then just got different compile errors.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge about flex can provide some
guidance?

Fathi, is that something that you or upstream have come across?

Ross, would it be possible to revert this patch so that the UEFI patches
can be merged? Obviously the problem still needs to be resolved.

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.