[cdt-patch] Applied [HEAD] Fw: Single scanner patch

[John Camelon <jcamelon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Dave.  

JohnC
www.eclipse.org/cdt
----- Forwarded by John
Camelon/Ottawa/IBM on 06/04/2004 10:32 AM -----

David Daoust/Ottawa/IBM wrote on 06/04/2004 09:56:51
AM:

> Sure,  Here it is.  (I also removed my test harness from
the patch)
> 
>  - Dave
> 
> [attachment "SubScanner.txt" deleted by John Camelon/Ottawa/IBM]

> 
> John Camelon/Ottawa/IBM
> 06/04/2004 09:50 AM
> 
> To
> 
> David Daoust/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
> 
> cc
> 
> Douglas Schaefer/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
> 
> Subject
> 
> Re: Single scanner patch
> 
> Dave, can you send the entire patch again, so I can see everything
at once? 
> Thanks
> 
> JohnC
> www.eclipse.org/cdt
> 
> David Daoust/Ottawa/IBM wrote on 06/04/2004 06:49:54 AM:
> 
> > Here is the updated file
> > [attachment "ScannerContextTopString.java"
deleted by John 
> > Camelon/Ottawa/IBM] 
> > 
> > In my tests (of just the scanner) the memory allocated has dropped
> > from 49M to 36M. 
> > 
> > For the same parse I get:
> > 
> > New :  5.2s  143M
> > 
> > Old:: 5.6s 156M
> > 
> >  - Dave
> > 
> > Douglas Schaefer/Ottawa/IBM
> > 06/03/2004 11:11 PM
> > 
> > To
> > 
> > David Daoust/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
> > 
> > cc
> > 
> > John Camelon/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
> > 
> > Subject
> > 
> > Re: Single scanner patch
> > 
> > Well, the time looks great. You took me from 8.9 to 8.1 seconds.
> > But, ouch, you've grown memory by 8 Meg from 156 to 164. It looks
to
> > be all in char[]'s so my work might blend well with this.
> > 
> > I'd prefer you address the macro issues before you submit, though.
> > This could be explaining the perf improvement ... without iostream
> > you only went from 4.7 to 4.5.
> > 
> > Doug Schaefer, IBM's Eclipse CDT Architect
> > Ottawa (Palladium), Ontario, Canada
> > 
> > David Daoust/Ottawa/IBM 
> > 06/03/2004 05:09 PM
> > 
> > To
> > 
> > John Camelon/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
> > 
> > cc
> > 
> > Douglas Schaefer/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
> > 
> > Subject
> > 
> > Single scanner patch
> > 
> > John,
> >  Here is a patch to reduce the scanner
count to 1.
> > 
> >  Note that there are three JUnit failures
> >   3-  looks like they were there
before.
> >   1.  Looks like a bad test case
(off by one in the offset).
> > 
> >  There were a bunch of problems masked by the subscanners
-- I 
> > talked with andrew, but if you include iostream, there are a
bunch 
> > of bad characters and macro problems with ... arguments.
> > 
> >  This patch includes my test class.  There is some
extra code in 
> > Scanner.evaluateExpression that we can discuss.
> > 
> > [attachment "SubScanner.txt" deleted by David Daoust/Ottawa/IBM]

> >  - Dave