On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:56:15PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Neil Conway writes: > > > I'm curious; why is this "not the right fix"? According to the manpage: > > > > -l turns on maximum compatibility with the original > > AT&T lex implementation. Note that this does not > > mean full compatibility. Use of this option > > costs a considerable amount of performance... > > The manpage also lists the specific incompatibilities. I think we should > not be affected by them, but someone better check before removing the -l.
AFAICT current sources don't actually use "-l" anywhere. However, it does appear that we can tweak flex for more performance (usually at the expense of a larger generated parser). In particular, it looks like we could use "-Cf" or "-CF". Is this a good idea? While we're on the subject of minor optimizations, is there a reason why we execute gcc with "-O2" rather than "-O3" during compilation? Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
