|Speeding up LEX scanning times email@example.com (1995-02-02)|
|Re: Speeding up LEX scanning times firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-02-02)|
|Re: Speeding up LEX scanning times c1veeru@WATSON.IBM.COM (Virendra K. Mehta) (1995-02-02)|
|Re: Speeding up LEX scanning times email@example.com (Stefan Monnier) (1995-02-03)|
|Re: Speeding up LEX scanning times firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-02-03)|
|Re: Speeding up LEX scanning times email@example.com (1995-02-04)|
|Re: Speeding up LEX scanning times firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-02-07)|
|From:||Stefan Monnier <email@example.com>|
|Organization:||Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne|
|Date:||Fri, 3 Feb 1995 08:42:52 GMT|
Pieter Hintjens <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
] However, I still find that the scanner is slow. I don't think I made
] any mistakes; for instance all keywords are identified by looking-up
] a table, rather than as individual scanner tokens.
Maybe, you should try another lexer generator. as John mentioned,
flex is supposedly faster and re2c is supposedly even faster.
flex has the advantage of being mostly lex compatible, whereas re2c
would require a little more work. But there are other lexer generators
out there in case neither flex nor re2c suits you.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.