Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!husc6!spdcc!ima!compilers-sender
From: schmidt@ORION.CF.UCI.EDU (Douglas C. Schmidt)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: Re: Lex surrogates
Message-ID: <3290@ima.ima.isc.com>
Date: 6 Feb 89 07:31:52 GMT
Sender: compilers-sender@ima.ima.isc.com
Reply-To: "Douglas C. Schmidt" <schmidt@ORION.CF.UCI.EDU>
Lines: 20
Approved: compilers@ima.UUCP

In article <3286@ima.ima.isc.com> Dave Berry <lfcs.edinburgh.ac.uk!db writes:
++If Lex is as bad as these articles (and my experience) suggest, I'm surprised
++that GNU are using it for an optimising compiler.

Arrrrrggghh.  I can't take the spread of misinformation any more!  GNU
C and GNU C++ *don't* use LEX or FLEX or GNULEX (no, it doesn't
exist).  The lexical analyzers are hand coded (I know, because I wrote
the perfect hash function that recognizes GNU C and C++ reserved words
in O(1) time).  Please get the facts straight on this (which shouldn't
be too hard, since the source is freely available ;-)).

Doug Schmidt

PS: They do use an LALR BISON (YACC) grammar, however.
[From "Douglas C. Schmidt" <schmidt@ORION.CF.UCI.EDU>]
--
Send compilers articles to ima!compilers or, in a pinch, to Levine@YALE.EDU
Plausible paths are { decvax | 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