[antlr-interest] Re: Generated C++ Parser Performance

lgcraymer lgc at mail1.jpl.nasa.gov
Mon Mar 15 22:48:14 PST 2004


I'd bet on the lexer then.  The only other likely sources of slowdown
 memory are memory management--a custom allocator for ASTs might
help--and exceptions (syntactic predicates).  Ric may have some other
suggestions.

--Loring

--- In antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com, "cwrenniks" <cwrenniks at a...> wrote:
> Actually, I hadn't broken it down between the lexer and parser, in 
> terms of processing time. We're using a generated lexer, into a 
> parser, and then into a tree parser. Is there some documentation or 
> archives out there that I can scan for tips to make the c++ 
> generated code faster? 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Renniks
> 
> --- In antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com, "lgcraymer" <lgc at m...> wrote:
> > When you write "parser", do you mean "language processor"?  If so, 
> the
> > lexer is likely to be the problem--check the flex example for an
> > alternative approach.
> > 
> > --Loring
> > 
> > --- In antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com, "cwrenniks" 
> <cwrenniks at a...> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > Been doing some testing in a cross language project, generating 
> my 
> > > grammar in both C++ and Java. I've noticed that the Java parser 
> is 
> > > much faster than the C++ parser, which surprised me. We 
> generated 
> > > the parser over to C++ looking for more performance, and were 
> bummed 
> > > when it went the other way! Is this going to be corrected?
> > > 
> > > Cheers!
> > > 
> > > Renniks



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/antlr-interest/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     antlr-interest-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



More information about the antlr-interest mailing list