Re: Best language for implementing compilers?

Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net>
Sun, 10 Mar 2019 16:13:07 +0100

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[16 earlier articles]
Re: Best language for implementing compilers? gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2019-03-09)
Re: Best language for implementing compilers? gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2019-03-09)
Re: Best language for implementing compilers? 157-073-9834@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2019-03-10)
Re: Best language for implementing compilers? 157-073-9834@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2019-03-10)
Re: Best language for implementing compilers? christopher.f.clark@compiler-resources.com (Christopher F Clark) (2019-03-10)
Re: Best language for implementing compilers? bc@freeuk.com (Bart) (2019-03-10)
Re: Best language for implementing compilers? DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2019-03-10)
Re: Best language for implementing compilers? gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2019-03-10)
Re: Best language for implementing compilers? gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2019-03-10)
Re: Best language for implementing compilers? christopher.f.clark@compiler-resources.com (Christopher F Clark) (2019-03-11)
Re: Best language for implementing compilers? christopher.f.clark@compiler-resources.com (Christopher F Clark) (2019-03-11)
Re: Best language for implementing compilers? DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2019-03-12)
Re: Best language for implementing compilers? mertesthomas@gmail.com (2019-03-12)
[1 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 16:13:07 +0100
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 19-02-002 19-02-004 19-02-006 19-03-009
Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="54374"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: C, parse
Posted-Date: 10 Mar 2019 21:08:11 EDT

Am 10.03.2019 um 12:13 schrieb Christopher F Clark:


> All that said, the output of any decent
> C/C++ lexer and parser generator is often more than fast enough. That's
> despite lexing and parsing often taking upto a third of the compilation time.
> BTW, lexing (because it looks at every character) is the dominant factor in
> that.


If so, then lexing were the dominant factor for *all* parsers with a
lexer, not only for C/C++.


My experience and the existence of specific workarounds identify two C
specific properties as most time consuming, the preprocessor and the
lack of a multi-module (project) compilation. None of these is related
to a *lexer in the strict sense* (tokenizer), because it all happens in
between the tokenizer and parser.


DoDi



Post a followup to this message

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