Re: is lex useful?

Scott Stanchfield <scooter@mccabe.com>
27 Jun 1996 11:27:16 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[7 earlier articles]
Re: is lex useful? bos@serpentine.com (1996-06-26)
Re: is lex useful? dhami@mdd.comm.mot.com (1996-06-26)
Re: is lex useful? stefan.monnier@lia.di.epfl.ch (Stefan Monnier) (1996-06-26)
Re: is lex useful? raph@kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu (1996-06-26)
Re: is lex useful? rgreen@barach.bbn.com (1996-06-26)
Re: is lex useful? leichter@smarts.com (Jerry Leichter) (1996-06-27)
Re: is lex useful? scooter@mccabe.com (Scott Stanchfield) (1996-06-27)
Re: is lex useful? Scott.Nicol@infoadvan.com (1996-06-27)
Re: is lex useful? Scott.Nicol@infoadvan.com (1996-06-27)
Re: is lex useful? 72510.2757@CompuServe.COM (Stephen Lindholm) (1996-06-27)
Re: is lex useful? kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de (1996-06-27)
Re: is lex useful? bart@time.cirl.uoregon.edu (1996-06-30)
Re: is lex useful? Robert.Corbett@Eng.Sun.COM (1996-06-30)
[9 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Scott Stanchfield <scooter@mccabe.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 27 Jun 1996 11:27:16 -0400
Organization: McCabe & Associates
References: 96-06-073 96-06-094 96-06-116
Keywords: lex

I'd be interested in how the flex scanner was written here.


You say you optimized the hand scanner for speed. Did you do the
same for the flex lexer? I mean things like how you handled keywords
(flex RE for each, or hash-lookup when something looks like an IDENT?)


I'd tend to agree with your conclusion overall, but your numbers seem to
show a 60% increase in throughput. Are the two really being compared on
equal ground?


-- Scott






Raph Levien wrote:
>
> >[Has anyone actually timed a flex scanner vs. a hand-coded one? -John]
>
> This was a homework project in Berkeley's graduate compiler class
> in the fall of '92. My measurements indicated that the hand-coded
> version was about 60% faster than the flex version.


--
Scott Stanchfield McCabe & Associates -- Columbia, Maryland
--

Post a followup to this message

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