[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gcc compile-time performance
From: |
Robert Dewar |
Subject: |
Re: gcc compile-time performance |
Date: |
Mon, 20 May 2002 21:47:41 -0400 (EDT) |
<<The "right" way to do it if you have a hand-written parser is to try to
go forward under more than one assumption: either the undefined name is
an identifier, or it is a type. Picking the wrong assumption will
generate a cascade of errors; picking the right assumption will only
generate one or two. We actually added a couple of simple rules of this
type around the 3.0 timeframe, e.g. for "foo bar;" where foo is
undeclared, assumes that foo is a type, so bar gets marked as a value
whose type is {error}.
>>
Yes, that's reasonable, one can have a special entity designation internally
that is type-or-identifier. In GNAT we do a lot of such tracking (all the
entities called Any_xxx are for this purpose). The exact handling is of course
VERY language dependent.
- Re: gcc compile-time performance, (continued)
Re: gcc compile-time performance, Hans Aberg, 2002/05/20
Re: gcc compile-time performance, Robert Dewar, 2002/05/20
Re: gcc compile-time performance, Robert Dewar, 2002/05/20
Re: gcc compile-time performance, Robert Dewar, 2002/05/20
Re: gcc compile-time performance, Robert Dewar, 2002/05/20
Re: gcc compile-time performance, Robert Dewar, 2002/05/20
Re: gcc compile-time performance,
Robert Dewar <=