[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited
From: |
John |
Subject: |
Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 22:35:11 -0500 (EST) |
> Has anybody profiled a static lexical analyzer to see how much
> overhead the yyget_out etc. function calls add to run time?
It would be unnoticable.
> I cannot imagine a scenario where I specify a prefix foo and *don't*
> want the equivalent of #define yylex foolex, etc. Can you?
Yes, if there is an existing function "yylex" (or "yy_whatever"), and
you don't want to clash with it. This is why namespaces were invented.
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, (continued)
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Paul Eggert, 2003/02/25
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/25
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited,
John <=
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Paul Eggert, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, Bruce Lilly, 2003/02/26
- Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/26
Re: Bison/flex compatibility revisited, John, 2003/02/27