Duh, I'm spacing out. I wrote a parser using Parse::RecDescent that parses verilog. Verilog is C-like but for hardware development. At the very least, you could use it to benchmark how fast it would parse your code. I think I include some verilog samples and a benchmarking test to tell you how many lines you're parsing a second or minute. If it runs fast enough on your system, then that at least proves you could use parse recdescent to act as your parser. If you're lucky, you might be able to use a bunch of my verilog rules to parse your C-like language. Verilog is a lot like C, but there is a superset of the language for handling the parallel nature of hardware. But it has expressions and conditionals and case statements and for loops and C stuff like that too. So you could probably use that as a starting point for your grammar. I believe I implemented the entire verilog grammar. It was something like a thouand or maybe two thousand rules in Parse RecDescent. Or maybe I'm thinking of the VHDL grammar I wrote. I forget. http://search.cpan.org/~gslondon/Hardware-Verilog-Parser-0.13/Parser.pm The file that contains the actual grammar is here http://search.cpan.org/src/GSLONDON/Hardware-Verilog-Parser-0.13/generate_precompiled_parser.pl Greg
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ted Zlatanov Sent: Mon 6/26/2006 1:45 PM To: David Cantrell Cc: Boston Perl Mongers Subject: Re: [Boston.pm] Parser for C-like language? On 23 Jun 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 09:23:09AM -0400, Ted Zlatanov wrote: > On 23 Jun 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>> Wasn't there a C grammer for Parse::RecDescent ? >>> Not that worked. Damian has acknowledged elsewhere that it shouldn't >>> have been included. >> It works for simple cases, and may be adequate for the OP's needs. I >> would recommend P::RD, because its grammar definitions are pretty >> similar to the Perl 6 grammar definitions (it will matter, some day), >> and because it's pretty good in general. About the only thing that's >> hard about it is parsing the error messages, which takes practice. > > I've tried P::RD. I didn't like it at all. It seemed to take an awful > lot of work to define a very simple language ... That hasn't been my experience. > ... and I was not impressed by the documentation. > Next time I need a parser I'll try Parse::Yapp. I actually found Parse::Yapp's documentation much worse. P::RD has a lot of good docs and a FAQ. While it has shortcomings (speed is a problem for a lot of people, though for me it hasn't been too bad) documentation is not one of them. Ted _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
