|LEX behaviour when given "large" automata. firstname.lastname@example.org (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. email@example.com (Vern Paxson) (1988-03-18)|
|Re: LEX behaviour when given "large" automata. firstname.lastname@example.org (1988-03-20)|
|Date:||Fri, 18 Mar 88 16:26:47 PST|
|From:||Vern Paxson <email@example.com>|
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
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 Paxson firstname.lastname@example.org
Real Time Systems ucbvax!lbl-csam.arpa!vern
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (415) 486-6411
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.