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=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_NEUTRAL 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 366B9BC69 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:28:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.173]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l2UESNVj013701 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:28:23 +0200 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id k3so902678ugf for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 07:28:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:message-id:cc:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; b=YiDXkSNVdnjjBCDXycUcqXjNPgWZiAhUiXMnJoyYtr0X7zdQ4kvPvZh8qwiKGrLewaybXjaE30oZPYkNrCubYUKGIE2L6AxRLi76KsL6xqaT7fXFCpN9GoNzk+8hNWGoU/zgexa6bGVbYzGoJFkukFu0C40VdtzFr4Q4+NYOUR8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:message-id:cc:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; b=czkL0c2tWkqCO3ZsuGPjfaIXZrXvSE7fJrN1bQjwJk8D+MpkdBCrNGb5wp6eBaodNUnMr8BXlm+NNDn3r2xTdKzD692XDjgcLdIuZNDKNxnEfn/lLKsz9j5kStlqTP0es/UpQU0eW6KC6hGR4CgYUst0PqBRH4OeLMqSsEqNMB8= Received: by 10.82.104.18 with SMTP id b18mr3982255buc.1175264902975; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 07:28:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.34? ( [88.7.143.102]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id z37sm1508521ikz.2007.03.30.07.28.19; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 07:28:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <51E5CF1F-352C-434A-8C5E-2AA4E52EE520@gmail.com> <20070330133151.GC6173@yquem.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <8B056D49-B2F5-4352-B967-4B6FB482F3E0@gmail.com> Cc: Francois.Pottier@inria.fr, "Caml List" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Joel Reymont Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Size of produced parser: menhir vs ocamlyacc Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:28:17 +0100 To: "Markus Mottl" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 460D1E87.000 on discorde : j-chkmail score : XXX : 5/20 1 0.000 -> 3 X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 460D1E87.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; parser:01 ocamlyacc:01 markus:01 mottl:01 parsers:01 parser:01 ocamlyacc:01 2007,:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 complex:04 size:95 anyway:06 performs:06 rather:08 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. Thanks, Joel -- http://wagerlabs.com/