[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