Xref: utzoo comp.compilers:211 comp.lang.c:8295 comp.unix.questions:6119
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!necntc!ima!johnl
From: phs@lifia.imag.fr (Philippe Schnoebelen)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.lang.c,comp.unix.questions
Subject: LEX behaviour when given "large" automata.
Message-ID: <911@ima.ISC.COM>
Date: 3 Mar 88 17:48:52 GMT
Sender: johnl@ima.ISC.COM
Reply-To: phs@lifia.imag.fr (Philippe Schnoebelen)
Organization: Lab. LIFIA  --  Univ. Grenoble
Lines: 27
Approved: compilers@ima.UUCP


   I'm having some problems with LEX. When my number of keywords/regexps is
growing, the lexical analyzer  begins to  give strange,  unexpected, (let's
face  it, wrong) results. This  is very annoying because  I did not get any
warning message about my lexical specification being too large.  Now, maybe
LEX is okay and I'm just blaming  it for my weird  errors, but you know how
it is easy to find a suspect when you're no C wizard :-)

  Is there  anybody who knows something about  the behaviour of LEX in such
situations, and  who could   explain   how to interpret,  avoid, solve  the
problem ? (A first solution would be to get some warning message...)

   Much thanks in advance.
--
Philippe SCHNOEBELEN,				Best:        phs@lifia.imag.fr
LIFIA - INPG,
46, Avenue Felix VIALLET			2nd:		phs@lifia.UUCP
38000 Grenoble, FRANCE				last: ..!mcvax!inria!lifia!phs
[Lex has never been noted for its robustness, nor for the quality of its
implementation, having been basically a summer's student intern project.  It
could stand serious rewriting which, to the best of my knowlege, it has never
received.  -John]
--
Send compilers articles to ima!compilers or, in a pinch, to Levine@YALE.EDU
Plausible paths are { ihnp4 | decvax | cbosgd | harvard | yale | bbn}!ima
Please send responses to the originator of the message -- I cannot forward
mail accidentally sent back to compilers.  Meta-mail to ima!compilers-request