|What is the future of Compiler ? firstname.lastname@example.org (blerta bishaj) (2006-06-12)|
|Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? email@example.com (Tommy Thorn) (2006-06-19)|
|Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? firstname.lastname@example.org (Oliver Zeigermann) (2006-07-16)|
|Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? Juergen.Kahrs@vr-web.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=) (2006-07-16)|
|Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? email@example.com (Paulo Matos) (2006-07-31)|
|Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? firstname.lastname@example.org (Gabriel Dos Reis) (2006-07-31)|
|Re: GCC parser performacne, What is the future of Compiler technology? email@example.com (Paolo Bonzini) (2006-08-08)|
|From:||"Paolo Bonzini" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||8 Aug 2006 23:58:58 -0400|
|References:||06-06-04406-06-055 06-07-023 06-07-031 06-07-109 06-07-114|
|Keywords:||GCC, C++, parse, performance|
|Posted-Date:||08 Aug 2006 23:58:58 EDT|
> From experience, the performance of the GCC/g++ *parser* had worried
> and continue to worry users and corporate that base their system
> compilers on it.
> [Really? The parser, not the lexer? -John]
Besides all the other reasons exposed further down in the thread, it is
relevant that the GCC parser for C++ does backtracking, and the
backtracking is often driven by some initial semantic processing; the
lexer however only looks at each character once because the file (after
preprocessing) is kept in memory in tokenized format.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.