Related articles |
---|
What is the future of Compiler ? blertadn@yahoo.com (blerta bishaj) (2006-06-12) |
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? tommy.thorn@gmail.com (Tommy Thorn) (2006-06-19) |
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? oliver@zeigermann.de (Oliver Zeigermann) (2006-07-16) |
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? Juergen.Kahrs@vr-web.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=) (2006-07-16) |
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? pocmatos@gmail.com (Paulo Matos) (2006-07-31) |
Re: What is the future of Compiler technology? gdr@integrable-solutions.net (Gabriel Dos Reis) (2006-07-31) |
Re: GCC parser performacne, What is the future of Compiler technology? bonzini@gnu.org (Paolo Bonzini) (2006-08-08) |
From: | "Paolo Bonzini" <bonzini@gnu.org> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 8 Aug 2006 23:58:58 -0400 |
Organization: | http://groups.google.com |
References: | 06-06-04406-06-055 06-07-023 06-07-031 06-07-109 06-07-114 |
Keywords: | GCC, C++, parse, performance |
Posted-Date: | 08 Aug 2006 23:58:58 EDT |
> From experience, the performance of the GCC/g++ *parser* had worried
> and continue to worry users and corporate that base their system
> compilers on it.
>
> [Really? The parser, not the lexer? -John]
Besides all the other reasons exposed further down in the thread, it is
relevant that the GCC parser for C++ does backtracking, and the
backtracking is often driven by some initial semantic processing; the
lexer however only looks at each character once because the file (after
preprocessing) is kept in memory in tokenized format.
Paolo
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.