Re: Looking for a fast C++ parser

"Peter \"Firefly\" Lund" <firefly@diku.dk>
16 Aug 2005 11:16:51 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[4 earlier articles]
Re: Looking for a fast C++ parser firefly@diku.dk (Peter \Firefly\Lund) (2005-08-13)
Re: Looking for a fast C++ parser snicol@apk.net (Scott Nicol) (2005-08-16)
Re: Looking for a fast C++ parser Martin.Ward@durham.ac.uk (Martin Ward) (2005-08-16)
Re: Looking for a fast C++ parser firefly@diku.dk (Peter \Firefly\Lund) (2005-08-16)
Re: Looking for a fast C++ parser firefly@diku.dk (Peter \Firefly\Lund) (2005-08-16)
Re: Looking for a fast C++ parser snicol@apk.net (Scott Nicol) (2005-08-16)
Re: Looking for a fast C++ parser firefly@diku.dk (Peter \Firefly\Lund) (2005-08-16)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Peter \"Firefly\" Lund" <firefly@diku.dk>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 16 Aug 2005 11:16:51 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 05-06-133 05-08-030 05-08-035 05-08-051 <42FD7FC1.4040704@apk.net> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508131127530.11001@tyr.diku.dk> <42FDF529.609@apk.net>
Keywords: tools, C++

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Scott Nicol wrote:


> Interesting, I've never noticed sluggish response with vim, and most of my
> computers can be described as anything but quick. I tried a simple test on a
> 733MHz Celeron with 512MB RAM running an couple-year-old version of Linux. I


Which actually is a pretty fast screaming monster machine ;)


A 75MHz 486 (without X) is definitely not fast enough (it's one of my
old laptops).


> Doing this 4 times a second (i.e. 2 remove/add cycles) shows a load of around
> 5% (using top). Given that there is some overhead just from X-windows


So one remove/add cycle takes 2.5%, i.e. 1/40s = 25ms. I guess the delay
would be visible to me on a 133 MHz machine.


-Peter


Post a followup to this message

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