|AT&T lex port firstname.lastname@example.org (2000-10-19)|
|Re: AT&T lex port email@example.com (2000-10-22)|
|Re: AT&T lex port firstname.lastname@example.org (Hans-Bernhard Broeker) (2000-10-22)|
|Re: AT&T lex port email@example.com (Paul Evans) (2000-10-23)|
|Re: AT&T lex port firstname.lastname@example.org (Paul Evans) (2000-10-26)|
|Re: AT&T lex port email@example.com (Graham Douglas) (2001-01-09)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (John S. Dyson)|
|Date:||22 Oct 2000 01:10:24 -0400|
email@example.com (Jason Brink) writes:
> Does anyone know of a port of AT&T lex to Windows NT/2000 or Linux? I
> know flex is better than AT&T lex, but I'm currently doing a co-op
> term and working on a large project, which runs on Solaris, HP-UX,
> AIX, etc. All those systems have AT&T lex, and so that is what the
> lexers in the project were written for. Now we would like to port it
> over to Windows 2000 and Linux. I've tried using flex on some of our
> lexers, and then compiling the generated code, and there are lots of
> problems. Any help would be appreciated!
> Jason Brink
> [I don't think that AT&T lex has ever been freed from the onerous
> System V source license. Having seen the source code, I can say that
> it's some of the ugliest C code I've ever seen. -John]
I *strongly* suggest porting FLEX or an equivalent clone, rather than
using AT&T LEX. Even if one has to port FLEX to all of the target
platforms, I think that the effort of porting will be nil.
This is just FWIW, and only a personal and kindly meant opinion.
[I entirely agree. AT&T lex is slow and buggy. An entirely reasonable
approach is to run the lexer through flex once, then port the generated
C code, since flex writes rather good portable code. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.