Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| RE: 90/10 rule... source? qjackson@shaw.ca (Quinn Tyler Jackson) (2004-01-09) |
| RE: 90/10 rule... source? qjackson@shaw.ca (Quinn Tyler Jackson) (2004-01-12) |
| Re: 90/10 rule... source? nkavv@skiathos.physics.auth.gr (2004-01-16) |
| Re: 90/10 rule... source? ieuk001@attglobal.net (2004-01-22) |
| From: | Quinn Tyler Jackson <qjackson@shaw.ca> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 9 Jan 2004 23:51:54 -0500 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| Keywords: | practice, parse |
| Posted-Date: | 09 Jan 2004 23:51:54 EST |
| In-reply-to: | 04-01-038 |
> [That's probably the one you want. It was the first to use the term
> program profiling, and it was big news at the time how much of a
> speedup you could get by rewriting tiny bits of a program if it was
> the right tiny bits. It's reprinted in Knuth's new "Selected Papers
> on Computer Languages", ISBN 1575863820. -John]
I've wondered if there are any other* parser generators out there that can
profile at the production level.
--
Quinn Tyler Jackson
http://members.shaw.ca/qjackson/
* I say "other" because Meta-S does this.
[I think I've seen a profiling version of yacc, but it was a long time
ago. Unless a compiler does a great deal of analysis and
optimization, the lexer is usually the part of the program that eats
up the most time. I don't ever recall a parser that took much of the
overall runtime. -John]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.