Hi Jim, > It is a function of your grammar, which is badly organized and ambiguous. > This is causing the generation of huge DFA tables and convoluted code.
Thanks a lot for being so clear. I also found this grammar not being a real good one. > You will find that it is the same with Java if you set the –X settings to the > same as C, however the DFA tables in Java are generated as run length > compressed strings, which means that when you look at the source code it > fools you in to thinking that it is smaller but it is just replaced by a huge > overhead in expanding the strings at runtime instead. Is this really such a big overhead to do a one-time extraction? To me this runlength compressions looks like an excellent way to reduce the parser code size. > Follow the advice about removing backtracking one rule at a time, do the left > factoring, and you will find it is good. When you are writing a grammar, you > should do so in small increments, solving any introduced ambiguities as you > go, and not piling them up until the end as then it will seem like an > intractable problem. Thanks again. I'll try to follow your advice. Mike -- www.soft-gems.net
_______________________________________________ antlr-dev mailing list antlr-dev@antlr.org http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-dev
