Re: Popularity of compiler tools, was LRgen

Tegiri Nenashi <TegiriNenashi@gmail.com>
Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:13:38 -0700 (PDT)

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Re: Seeking recommendations for a Visual Parser to replace Visual Pars mjfs1@cam.ac.uk (Marcel Satchell) (2008-03-28)
Re: LRgen, was Seeking recommendations for a Visual Parser to replace paul@paulbmann.com (Paul B Mann) (2008-03-31)
Popularity of compiler tools, was LRgen anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2008-04-06)
Re: Popularity of compiler tools, was LRgen joevans@gmail.com (Jason Evans) (2008-04-07)
Re: Popularity of compiler tools, was LRgen TegiriNenashi@gmail.com (Tegiri Nenashi) (2008-04-08)
Re: Popularity of compiler tools, was LRgen walter@bytecraft.com (Walter Banks) (2008-04-11)
Re: Popularity of compiler tools, was LRgen DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2008-04-11)
Re: Popularity of compiler tools, was LRgen idbaxter@semdesigns.com (2008-04-11)
Re: Popularity of compiler tools, was LRgen TegiriNenashi@gmail.com (Tegiri Nenashi) (2008-04-11)
Re: Popularity of compiler tools, was LRgen wclodius@los-alamos.net (2008-04-11)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Tegiri Nenashi <TegiriNenashi@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 08-03-107 08-03-119 08-04-024
Keywords: tools
Posted-Date: 10 Apr 2008 23:26:37 EDT

On Apr 6, 8:25 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
wrote:
> - Finally, many compiler writers seem to dislike tools (or maybe none
> of the tools are good enough or something).
>
> In particular, while I know of several tools for instruction
> selection using tree parsing, none of them seems to be widely-used;
> many compilers use hand-written instruction selectors, and of those
> where I have heard that they use generated tree-parsing instruction
> selectors, the generator was developed or extended in-house.
>
> One explanation I have heard is that the compiler writers don't like
> to make themselves dependent on a tool that may go away. OTOH, gcc
> reverted from using bison-generated parsers to hand-written ones (at
> least for C++ and C), and I very much doubt that the future of bison
> was the reason for that.
>
> Maybe some other posters can provide additional insights into the use
> or non-use of compiler tools and the reasons for this.


IMO there is not enough added value. Comparing writing parsing engine
from scratch vs. using off the shelf product I always prefer the
former. When chasing bugs it is much easier to find them in your own
code than being at the mercy of the tool owner. Next I find the whole
code generation idea ridiculous. I simply refuse to believe a code
generator can output a quality product. On large size grammar it can
easily generate huge methods that could overflow JVM method size (I
experienced with ANTLR). Then there limitations on what kind of
grammar a parser engine can accept, e.g. no left recursion, no
ambiguity, etc. This is totally inacceptible: a grammar is a
declarative specification of the language. Making a particular parser
engine happy does not warrant tinkering with it.


Within a wider perspective I feel a general failure of parser
technology to deliver a user friendly product. This is why we have
horrors of XML filling the void.


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.