flex scanner too huge, suggestions?

Troy Cauble <troy@bell-labs.com>
17 Feb 2001 01:35:30 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
flex scanner too huge, suggestions? troy@bell-labs.com (Troy Cauble) (2001-02-17)
Re: flex scanner too huge, suggestions? tej@melbpc.org.au (Tim Josling) (2001-02-23)
Re: flex scanner too huge, suggestions? snicol@apk.net (Scott Nicol) (2001-02-23)
Re: flex scanner too huge, suggestions? rkrayhawk@aol.com (2001-02-23)
Re: flex scanner too huge, suggestions? olsenc@ichips.intel.com (2001-02-25)
Re: flex scanner too huge, suggestions? Ron@Profit-Master.com (Ron Pinkas) (2001-02-25)
Re: flex scanner too huge, suggestions? troy@bell-labs.com (Troy Cauble) (2001-03-01)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Troy Cauble <troy@bell-labs.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 17 Feb 2001 01:35:30 -0500
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ, USA
Keywords: lex, practice, question
Posted-Date: 17 Feb 2001 01:35:29 EST

Hi all,


I have a working flex/bison implementation to parse a text
protocol. The problem is that the scanner is huge.


Made with LFLAGS = -Cfe, size gives
42068(.text) + 24(.data) + 60(.bss) + 1687886(.rodata) = 1730038


Made with LFLAGS = -Cem, size gives
42496(.text) + 24(.data) + 60(.bss) + 508326(.rodata) = 550906


This is still pretty large for some of our target environments.


I haven't tried to disable features to determine what makes
it so huge, but the protocol is case-insensitive and context
(position) sensitive. I addressed the context sensitivity
with flex start states.


My flex file has the following %option line.
%option noyywrap 8bit batch case-insensitive perf-report


I'm looking for suggestions for either tweaking my flex
implementation or switching to another scanner generator.


The corresponding bison parser is solid, so I'm not really
looking for suggestions to replace the pair. (We initially
tried several other tools for the total parsing problem but
they all choked on this large, context sensitive protocol.)


Thanks,
-troy


Post a followup to this message

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