|CUP/LEX has limitations email@example.com (Sharma, Girish \(Girish\)) (2005-06-23)|
|Re: CUP/LEX has limitations firstname.lastname@example.org (Scott Nicol) (2005-06-24)|
|Re: CUP/LEX has limitations email@example.com (Joel Jones) (2005-06-26)|
|Re: CUP/LEX has limitations firstname.lastname@example.org (Scott Nicol) (2005-06-26)|
|Re: CUP/LEX has limitations email@example.com (2005-06-30)|
|Re: CUP/LEX has limitations firstname.lastname@example.org (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2005-06-30)|
|Re: CUP/LEX has limitations email@example.com (Scott Nicol) (2005-07-02)|
|Re: CUP/LEX has limitations Martin.Ward@durham.ac.uk (Martin Ward) (2005-07-03)|
|Re: CUP/LEX has limitations firstname.lastname@example.org (A Pietu Pohjalainen) (2005-07-22)|
|From:||glen herrmannsfeldt <email@example.com>|
|Date:||30 Jun 2005 10:01:03 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||30 Jun 2005 10:01:03 EDT|
Scott Nicol wrote:
> Sharma, Girish (Girish) wrote:
>>Presently i am using CUPLEX parsers for my java application. My cup
>>file code is increased to 5500 lines and now its crashing and not
>>compiling giving "code too large " error because CUP/LEX uses 16-bit
>>unicode character set whaich gives limit only 0-65535 and my parser is
>>exceeding this limit.
> I haven't used CUP/LEX, but I'm quite familiar with the "code too
> large" error in Java. Java has a limit of 64k code per method (you,
> like I, might be wondering what was being smoked when that decision
> was made).
OO programming techniques are supposed to generate small methods,
such that 64K shouldn't be a problem. I agree, though, for machine
generated code it could be too small. I think there was supposed to
be a way around the limit, but it might be that it wasn't implemented (yet).
IBM's z/OS, for a 64 bit architecture, currently limits code to below
the 2GB line. There has been discussion on that limit, but I don't know
that anyone has a convincing case. That is total, not per method.
Note also that Java restricts subscripts to int, which as a signed 32
bit datatype. That might be changed, though, but it seems a restriction
that wasn't necessary.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.