From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16944 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2004 23:35:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16937 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2004 23:35:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out3.apple.com) (17.254.13.22) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 25 Oct 2004 23:35:22 -0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out3.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9PNeLEM021254 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay2.apple.com (relay2.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.14) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:35:25 -0700 Received: from [17.201.24.57] (polskifiat.apple.com [17.201.24.57]) by relay2.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9PNZJaN006787; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:35:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <42A6DEB0-26D4-11D9-9558-000D9330C50E@apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <8354E669-26DE-11D9-B761-000D9330C50E@apple.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org From: Ziemowit Laski Subject: Re: New C parser [patch] Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:45:00 -0000 To: "Joseph S. Myers" X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg02129.txt.bz2 On 25 Oct 2004, at 15.44, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Ziemowit Laski wrote: > >> I'm just curious as to why you think that writing a C parser from >> scratch is >> easier than tweaking Mark's parser to handle C. > > You have an interesting definition of "tweaking". I might indeed, but I haven't offered one yet. :-) > Geoffrey Keating gave > an estimate of 6-9 man-years to merge the front ends making them handle > the present languages as fast as at present. This compares to 1 > man-week > to write a functional C parser for the exact present language accepted > which also speeds up the compiler despite not having been profiled or > tuned for performance at all. While I don't buy these time estimates (not both simultaneously, anyway), I do agree that you would take a performance hit, at least in the short-term, especially for plain C code. > Merging front ends provides only marginal maintenance benefits That I buy even less than your time estimates. :-( But anyway, mine was just a question, not an objection. --Zem