Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.compilers > #727
| From | Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.compilers |
| Subject | Re: lexer speed, was Bison |
| Date | 2012-08-20 16:14 +0100 |
| Organization | Compilers Central |
| Message-ID | <12-08-010@comp.compilers> (permalink) |
| References | <12-08-005@comp.compilers> <12-08-006@comp.compilers> <12-08-008@comp.compilers> |
Hans-Peter Diettrich schrieb: >> [Compilers spend a lot of time in the lexer, because that's the only >> phase that has to look at the input one character at a time. -John] > > When the source code resides in a memory buffer, the time for reading > e.g. the characters of an identifier (in the lexer) is neglectable vs. > the time spent in lookup and entering the identifier into a symbol table > (in the parser). > > Even if a lexer reads single characters from a file, most OSs maintain > their own file buffer, so that little overhead is added over the > program-buffered solution. > > I really would like to see some current benchmarks about the behaviour > of current compilers and systems. > > DoDi > [The benchmarks I did were a while ago, but they showed a large > fraction of time in the lexer. I wouldn't disagree that building the > symbol table is slow, but figure out some estimate of the ratio of > the number of characters in a source file to the number of tokens, > and that is a rough estimate of how much slower the lexer will be > than the parser. I agree that some current analyses would be useful. > -John] Your estimation suggests that the benchmarked parser does not much more than syntax checking the tokens. In this case I agree that a parser automaton does less work (state transitions) than a lexer automaton (or equivalents), and that detailed benchmarking is not required to proof this fact. I still disagree that "Compilers spend a lot of time in the lexer". My point is that a real *compiler* does not normally spend significant time in neither the lexer nor the parser[1]. In so far it's okay to "profile your compiler to see where it's spending its time and fix what needs to be fixed", as you said :-) [1] The timing depends heavily on what tasks are assigned to the parser itself. Is code generation part of the parser, or part of a subsequent (optimization...) stage? What about symbol table (scopes) management and lookup, and an eventual preprocessor which IMO in an C compiler consumes more time than the lexer and parser altogether? But further discussion of these academic issues doesn't help in spotting the real bottlenecks of any concrete compiler ;-) DoDi [Perhaps you could do some experiments and tell us whether it confirms your intuition. Like I said, when I profiled some compilers, I was surprised to see how much time they spent grinding through the characters in the input. -John]
Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Bison deterministic LALR(1) parser for Java/C++ (kind of complex langauge) without 'lexar hack' support hsad005@gmail.com - 2012-08-17 11:22 -0700
Re: Bison deterministic LALR(1) parser for Java/C++ (kind of complex langauge) without 'lexar hack' support Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2012-08-18 10:13 +0100
Re: lexer speed, was Bison Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2012-08-20 01:01 +0100
Re: lexer speed, was Bison Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2012-08-20 16:14 +0100
Re: lexer speed, was Bison BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-20 14:14 -0500
Re: lexer speed, was Bison Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2012-08-21 07:40 +0100
Re: lexer speed, was Bison "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-21 17:39 +0100
Re: Bison deterministic LALR(1) parser for Java/C++ (kind of complex langauge) without 'lexar hack' support anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-08-20 13:35 +0000
Re: Bison deterministic LALR(1) parser for Java/C++ (kind of complex langauge) without 'lexar hack' support BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-21 14:45 -0500
Re: Bison deterministic LALR(1) parser for Java/C++ (kind of complex langauge) without 'lexar hack' support "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-22 14:04 +0100
Re: Bison deterministic LALR(1) parser for Java/C++ (kind of complex langauge) without 'lexar hack' support BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-26 19:37 -0500
Bison deterministic LALR parser for Java/C++ "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-29 22:03 +0100
speeding up C recompilation, was Re: Bison deterministic LALR BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-04 13:45 -0500
Re: C include handling, was Bison deterministic LALR Marco van de Voort <marcov@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-09-05 08:40 +0000
Re: Bison deterministic LALR(1) parser for Java/C++ (kind of complex langauge) without 'lexar hack' support hsad005@gmail.com - 2012-08-18 02:09 -0700
csiph-web