Re: Parser performance, was What is the future of Compiler technology?

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:


> | IMO it's neither the parser nor the lexer, instead it's the time spent
> | in preprocessing the source files.
>
> Having spent time on the matter, and having seen fellow contributors
> work on improving the situation, I have to disagree.


Do you take macro expansion into account, or only something like
precompiled headers?


> | I also don't know what impact namespaces have on the compilation of such
> | an source text.
>
> Basically, one has to do some minimal lookup to parse C++,
> i.e. distinguish between type-names, template-names, namespace-names,
> and other kind of names. The elaborated name lookup rules (partly
> introduced by namespaces) compounds the issue. From my measurements,
> non-negligible amount of time taken by the parser can be credited to
> name lookup.


My primary interest is the creation of the namespace tables. Are these
built only from explicitly #included files? IIRC the #using directive
doesn't allow for file names, so what's the source for the import of
the mentioned namespaces?


DoDi

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