Re: Lex surrogates

henry@zoo.toronto.edu
Thu, 16 Feb 89 06:10:11 EST

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[5 earlier articles]
Re: Lex surrogates ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) (1989-02-09)
Re: Lex surrogates mike@arizona.edu (1989-02-09)
Re: Lex surrogates tower@bu-cs.BU.EDU (1989-02-10)
Re: Lex surrogates pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (1989-02-11)
Re: Lex surrogates henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (1989-02-11)
Re: Lex surrogates holt@turing.toronto.edu (Ric Holt) (1989-02-13)
Re: Lex surrogates henry@zoo.toronto.edu (1989-02-16)
Re: Lex surrogates gmdka!grosch@unido.irb.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (1989-02-17)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 89 06:10:11 EST
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
In-Reply-To: <3332@ima.ima.isc.com>
References: <3324@ima.ima.isc.com>

>>The stuff lex puts in yytext[] also changes for each terminal, and hence
>>also must be saved immediately if you want to use it. I don't understand
>>why the lack of copying makes a practical difference.
>
>In a FAST scanner, every machine instruction counts...


Agreed, and I think FLEX does the right thing by not copying -- there
never was a good reason for it, except that LEX was a quick hack that
didn't ever get worked over properly for performance.


The original discussion was about how it affected the programming
semantics, not the performance, though, which is why I said what I did.


                                                                          Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                                                  uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
--

Post a followup to this message

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