From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from discorde.inria.fr (discorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.38]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B23EBC69 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:58:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ipmail02.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail02.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.141]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l2UFwIG8032634 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:58:20 +0200 Received: from ppp36-111.lns2.syd6.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.201]) ([59.167.36.111]) by ipmail02.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 31 Mar 2007 01:28:16 +0930 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,354,1170595800"; d="scan'208"; a="104274559:sNHT21156324" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Size of produced parser: menhir vs ocamlyacc From: skaller To: Joel Reymont Cc: Markus Mottl , Caml List In-Reply-To: <8B056D49-B2F5-4352-B967-4B6FB482F3E0@gmail.com> References: <51E5CF1F-352C-434A-8C5E-2AA4E52EE520@gmail.com> <20070330133151.GC6173@yquem.inria.fr> <8B056D49-B2F5-4352-B967-4B6FB482F3E0@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:58:11 +1000 Message-Id: <1175270291.22118.100.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 460D339A.003 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; parser:01 ocamlyacc:01 0100,:01 markus:01 mottl:01 parsers:01 parser:01 ocamlyacc:01 lalr:01 2007,:98 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 complex:04 On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 15:28 +0100, Joel Reymont wrote: > On Mar 30, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Markus Mottl wrote: > > > Not very. S-expressions, etc. But I wouldn't be surprised if Menhir > > performs better on more complex parsers, too. Generating parser code > > rather than tables may boost performance. > > Why did you pick menhir over ocamlyacc? I assume it was to use it in > server code but thought I would ask anyway. Note Ocamlyacc is LALR(1) whilst Menhir is LR(1). -- John Skaller Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net