Fix octal integer constant (0o...) parsing in row-filter calculator#141
Merged
Conversation
The flex rule for octal integer constants in eval.l had a typo:
octconst (0o]+)
The intended character class "[01234567]" was lost, so the pattern could
never match a real octal literal. As a result an expression such as
"(DIAMETER > 0o11610)" was tokenised as the integer 0 followed by the
octal bit string o11610, producing a syntax error (status 431), even
though 0x.. (hex) and 0b.. (binary) integer constants worked. Corrected
to:
octconst (0o[01234567]+)
Regenerated eval_l.c with flex 2.6.4 (a pure DFA-table change).
esabol
approved these changes
Jun 20, 2026
esabol
left a comment
esabol
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good catch! Surprising that it's gone unnoticed for 7 years.
c181gordon
approved these changes
Jun 21, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The flex rule for octal integer constants in eval.l had a typo:
The intended character class "[01234567]" was lost, so the pattern could
never match a real octal literal. As a result an expression such as
"(DIAMETER > 0o11610)" was tokenised as the integer 0 followed by the
octal bit string o11610, producing a syntax error (status 431), even
though 0x.. (hex) and 0b.. (binary) integer constants worked. Corrected
to:
Regenerated eval_l.c with flex 2.6.4 (a pure DFA-table change).