[antlr-interest] More, Status of C++ backend?
Gavin Lambert
antlr at mirality.co.nz
Wed Jan 2 14:49:24 PST 2008
At 05:22 3/01/2008, Jim Idle wrote:
>Yeah - I see that argument too, however I think it will end up
>being slower just for the sake of making it use "proper
>classes", so I would not use it and just go with the C runtime.
There's nothing inherently slow about C++ over C, it's just that
you have to be aware that the compiler can inject extra code
"behind your back" :)
And I wasn't proposing going and using std::string as a member of
the token or anything. You'd do it the same way as the Java
runtime works -- normally store only indexes, but create a string
on demand.
>I think doing this in phases makes a lot of sense.
Definitely. The obvious first phase would be to get the C runtime
C++-safe (which last time I checked it almost was, there was just
one function somewhere that used a C++ keyword as an identifier, I
think). The second phase would be to make C++ wrappers for the
existing C runtime.
The thing is, I'm not convinced that making C++ wrapper classes
would actually be faster or simpler than making full C++
classes. Trying to take a C++ object (with polymorphic methods)
and pass it across to the C runtime could get a little
tricky. Doable, of course; I'm just not sure it's worth the
effort.
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list