Re: Lex surrogates

"Douglas C. Schmidt" <schmidt@ORION.CF.UCI.EDU>
Sun, 05 Feb 89 23:31:52 -0800

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Lex surrogates!db@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK (Dave Berry) (1989-02-05)
Re: Lex surrogates schmidt@ORION.CF.UCI.EDU (Douglas C. Schmidt) (1989-02-05)
Re: Lex surrogates (Vern Paxson) (1989-02-06)
Re: Lex surrogates rsalz@BBN.COM (Rich Salz) (1989-02-07)
Re: Lex surrogates wpl@PRC.Unisys.COM (1989-02-06)
Re: Lex surrogates (Ken Yap) (1989-02-09)
Re: Lex surrogates (1989-02-09)
Re: Lex surrogates tower@bu-cs.BU.EDU (1989-02-10)
[5 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

Date: Sun, 05 Feb 89 23:31:52 -0800
From: "Douglas C. Schmidt" <schmidt@ORION.CF.UCI.EDU>

In article <> Dave Berry <!db writes:
++If Lex is as bad as these articles (and my experience) suggest, I'm surprised
++that GNU are using it for an optimising compiler.

Arrrrrggghh. I can't take the spread of misinformation any more! GNU
C and GNU C++ *don't* use LEX or FLEX or GNULEX (no, it doesn't
exist). The lexical analyzers are hand coded (I know, because I wrote
the perfect hash function that recognizes GNU C and C++ reserved words
in O(1) time). Please get the facts straight on this (which shouldn't
be too hard, since the source is freely available ;-)).

Doug Schmidt

PS: They do use an LALR BISON (YACC) grammar, however.
[From "Douglas C. Schmidt" <schmidt@ORION.CF.UCI.EDU>]

Post a followup to this message

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