I am not sure what parser generator you are using and it may not be practical switching to a different tool at this point, but beaver generates fast parsers -- I haven't done any systematic testing, but, just remember reading about different parser generators for another project. I like the JFlex-Beaver scanner-parser generator combination.
Subbu. On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Thomas E Enebo <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Subramanya Sastry <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> > I've filed a bug report for that: > >> > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JRUBY-4263 > >> > > >> > Another possibility I was hoping to get some good results was to use > >> > pre-compiled rb files into classes. But that turned out even worse > >> > performance (10x worse or so): > >> > > >> > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JRUBY-4273 > >> > >> We used to have serialized AST files and they were about 5-10% faster > >> than our old parser (which was 2-3 times slower than our current > >> parser when warm). Serialization could be a good idea, but from some > >> experimentation it does not make a big difference. > > > > When we get to the new IR-based interpreter, also worth experimenting > with > > is reading in the IR directly (equivalent to reading in .s files or .o > files > > even). > > Yes, this is a very good idea. One issue with out AST is that it ends > up being quite large. Much larger than equivalent Ruby source. So a > faster read but more to read. The IR may end up being as small as the > Ruby source but also quick to read. Certainly much simple > parser/loader. > > -Tom > > > > -- > blog: http://blog.enebo.com twitter: tom_enebo > mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > >
