| RE: [cdt-core-dev] Open C++ Parser |
Thanks Alain, we definitely want to line up on strategy and work together to make the right choices.
Right now the focus is on performance since we're hoping to replace ctags and gather cross-reference information for the index. We will likely need to have races to see which parser is faster. I still don't have a sense of this yet.
The second issue will be extensibility. We're running into that quickly as the two compilers we're using here for testing (g++ and VC++) both extend C++ in wacky ways. The parser strategy will need to handle this. I'm not sure if JavaCC handles subclassing (I know ANTLR does) so this may be easier to do with a handwritten parser.
I'll let everyone know when we've reached a reasonable level of quality and we can start comparing the options in more detail.
Cheers,
Doug Schaefer
Senior Staff Software Engineer
Rational - the software development company
Ottawa (Kanata), Ontario, Canada
-----Original Message-----
From: Alain Magloire [mailto:alain@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 12:02 PM
To: cdt-core-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cdt-core-dev] Open C++ Parser
>
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
> this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
>
> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2A1FD.015AC940
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> Hey all,
>
>
>
> We're having a lot of fun here porting the Open C++ parser to Java for
> potential use in the CDT. We've started parsing some basic things like
> stdio.h and performance up until now seems to be reasonable.
>
>
>
> However, before we get too far, people on the conference call on Monday
> mentioned they had experience with the Open C++ parser and were willing to
> share that with us. If you were one of those persons, could you please drop
> us a line. I have made some changes to make the parser do what we want
> including: our own handwritten scanner that also handles pre-processor
> directives, using exceptions for backtracking, replacing the Ptree with our
> own JDT-like AST, amongst other minor changes. In the end, we're really
> only using the grammar and the strategy of handwriting the parser. And it
> seems to be working although there is a lot of testing that needs to go
> on...
>
On this side of the pound, we have a preprocessor(base on the IBM CDT) and
work in progress ported the JavaCC C++ IBM parser.
But we will happilly let this go for the "Open C++", if you feel that it is
a better strategy for the long run. There are lots of other pieces involve
in this, feel free to let me know your strategy.
- one of the nagging issue, is storing/indexing the information.
- dealing with different paths base on defines etc ...
_______________________________________________
cdt-core-dev mailing list
cdt-core-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-core-dev