Re: LEX behaviour when given "large" automata.

Vern Paxson <lbl-helios!vern@lbl-rtsg.arpa>
Fri, 18 Mar 88 16:26:47 PST

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
LEX behaviour when given "large" automata. phs@lifia.imag.fr (1988-03-03)
Re: LEX behaviour when given "large" automata. rsalz@BBN.COM (Rich Salz) (1988-03-18)
Re: LEX behaviour when given "large" automata. chris@mimsy.UUCP (1988-03-20)
Re: LEX behaviour when given "large" automata. lbl-helios!vern@lbl-rtsg.arpa (Vern Paxson) (1988-03-18)
Re: LEX behaviour when given "large" automata. sargas.usc.edu!tli@oberon.usc.edu (1988-03-20)
| List of all articles for this month |
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 88 16:26:47 PST
From: Vern Paxson <lbl-helios!vern@lbl-rtsg.arpa>

Philippe Schnoebelen writes:


> I'm having some problems with LEX. When my number of keywords/regexps is
> growing, the lexical analyzer begins to give strange, unexpected, (let's
> face it, wrong) results.


and John adds:


> It [lex]
> could stand serious rewriting which, to the best of my knowlege, it has never
> received.


Well, let me plug flex, my lex replacement now in beta-test. It should be
able to handle very large inputs correctly, and generates its scanners
substantially faster than lex does. It's available via anonymous ftp
from lbl-rtsg.arpa and uunet, as flex.beta.Z. Philippe, if you can't
get to either of these I'll try sending it to you via mail.


Vern


Vern Paxson vern@lbl-csam.arpa
Real Time Systems ucbvax!lbl-csam.arpa!vern
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (415) 486-6411
--

Post a followup to this message

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