That sounds very large to me. I have a parser that generates 97940 lines
of C, and this is for a terribly ambiguous language with lots of
backtracking. I would recommend doing some left-factoring and maybe add
some predicates to trim that down a bit.
On 11/8/2011 1:22 PM, yushang wrote:
> Hi ev
Try using Console.WriteLine() instead of System.out.println(). What is
inside of the curly braces is directly injected into the C# code being
generated, and therefore needs to be C# syntax, not Java.
- Justin
On 10/19/2011 2:25 PM, Voelkel, Andy wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> First, thanks for the encour
> better way of doing this.
>
> The reason I am using ANTLR 3.2 is that this was the latest version available
> when development on the project began and now this version has become part of
> ESA's platform definition for Linux servers. If I can get this changed to
>
Hi Luke,
I may not be the best person to answer, but I do have some suggestions.
My guess as to why you are seeing different behavior on different
machines is that the machines probably have different amounts of memory
available for ANTLR to use. You are requesting 1GB of stack and heap
each f
fications.
- Justin
On 7/29/2011 11:06 AM, Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:
> On 7/29/11 5:09 PM, "Justin Murray" wrote:
>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> I'm not trying to rush you or anything, but I am wondering if you have
>> an estimate for the release of the 3.4 C runti
Hi Jim,
I'm not trying to rush you or anything, but I am wondering if you have
an estimate for the release of the 3.4 C runtime. I'd like to use it in
our next release, and with deadlines approaching it would be helpful to
know if I'll have time to fit it in or not.
Thank you!
- Justin
List:
I think that Vlad may be onto something here. From what I can tell from my
generated grammar, this only affects ANTLR3_MISMATCHED_SET_EXCEPTION type
exceptions. My grammar has several hundred parser rules, but only in 4 cases is
a ANTLR3_MISMATCHED_SET_EXCEPTION generated. In all 4 cases, the ex
-interest-boun...@antlr.org [mailto:antlr-interest-
>> boun...@antlr.org] On Behalf Of Justin Murray
>> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 10:19 AM
>> To: antlr-interest@antlr.org
>> Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] [C target] Warnings in 64-bit compile
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
As Jim pointed out, your problem with tokens showing up in error
messages as is because you just inlined lexer tokens (in your
"type" rule) without giving them a name. Try making two real lexer rules
with the names you would like to see:
INT : 'int';
FLOAT : 'float';
type : INT | FLOAT;
If yo
I gave antlr-3.4-complete-no-antlrv2.jar a try, and it appears to be
working perfectly with my v3.3 grammar! Great work as usual guys.
-- Justin
On 7/20/2011 3:30 PM, Terence Parr wrote:
> Hi,Before I announce 3.4 release, can somebody try out these jars just make
> sure everything is cool? Th
Hi Jim,
On 6/24/2011 12:42 PM, Jim Idle wrote:
> Please note that the documentation for the C runtime in 3.4 is yet to be
> updated. In the meantime, if you wish to try it, then there is one change
> that you need to be aware of:
>
>
>
> 1) The distinction between ASCII and UCS2 input streams
that you don't use these but left factor your grammar. However, I
will fix it of course.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Justin Murray [mailto:jmur...@ae
Decided to give this a run on my C-target grammar. I'm getting the
following error:
1> [exec] org\antlr\grammar\v3\DefineGrammarItemsWalker.g: node from
line 290:15 required (...)+ loop did not match anything at input
''
1> [exec] error(10): internal error: c:\...\Aerobasic.g :
java.l
Hi Jim,
Would you mind elaborating on this just a bit? You bring up this same
concept quite frequently on this list, but there is something that I am
missing. I understand how matching more generically in earlier stages
will lead to better error message in later stages, but this seems to me
to
Jim,
I have a question regarding your comment on case insensitivity. I have
been using the "slowest" case insensitive lexer technique, as this is
the first I have seen a viable alternative (on the page that you linked
to). The grammar I am working with is a bit strange in that all of the
keywo
what I don't
like about this that I then have to write a bunch of C code that
essentially parses the string again.
So I am looking for some advice on the best way to approach this
problem. If anyone has done something similar before, I would appreciate
any suggestions that you have for me
Hi Richard,
The answer is to use 2 lexer rules instead of one, and change the parser
rule. It is generally not a good idea to mark whitespace as hidden (as
you have done), and also use whitespace in your lexer rules. Here is
what I would try:
grammar testing;
start :
( DOLLAR? I
These are called Semantic Predicates. Section 12.1 in TDAR.
Specifically, look at page 295 of the PDF. If the predicate evaluates to
false, the alternative is effectively switched off.
- Justin
On 2/11/2011 1:04 PM, Olivier Lefevre wrote:
> Great! Not to abuse but would you know in which sectio
Hi Bastian,
I have been using the C target for some time now. The lexer tokens are
#define statements that can be found in both the generated lexer and
parser .h files. Look for this heading in xxxParser.h:
/** Symbolic definitions of all the tokens that the parser will work with.
- Justin
On
org [mailto:antlr-interest-
> boun...@antlr.org] On Behalf Of Justin Murray
> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 11:59 AM
> To: antlr-interest@antlr.org
> Subject: [antlr-interest] [C target] Warnings in 64-bit compile
>
> Jim,
>
>
>
> I am working on making our compile
rget
runtime? Also, is there a tenative release date for the C runtime that
will officially support ANTLR 3.3 (it seems that the code generated by
ANTLR 3.3 works ok with the 3.2 C runtime)?
Thanks,
Justin Murray
Software Engineer
jmur...@aerotech.com
Aerotech, Inc.
101 Zeta Drive
Pitt
void. What
is the correct way to do this?
Thanks,
Justin Murray
Software Engineer
jmur...@aerotech.com
Aerotech, Inc.
101 Zeta Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
412-963-7470
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe:
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options
first
question is, should adding action code have any effect on the time it
takes to generate the code? That aside, what would cause the lengthy
hangup on that one decision? The rest of the decisions go by very
quickly.
Thanks,
Justin Murray
Software Engineer
jmur...@aerotech.com
Aerotech,
to make them more unique, while
preserving the nice, readable grammar definition file?
Thank you,
Justin Murray
Software Engineer
jmur...@aerotech.com
Aerotech, Inc.
101 Zeta Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
412-963-7470
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
erest@antlr.org
Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] ANTRL 3.3
C target is not ready for 3.3 yet, wait for 3.3.1.
Jim
> -Original Message-
> From: antlr-interest-boun...@antlr.org [mailto:antlr-interest-
> boun...@antlr.org] On Behalf Of Justin Murray
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 6:
riday, December 10, 2010 12:02 PM
To: Justin Murray
Cc: antlr-interest@antlr.org
Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] ANTRL 3.3
hi. that's telling you to fix the decision associated with that spewing
of conversion notes.
Ter
On Dec 10, 2010, at 6:51 AM, Justin Murray wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
ould cause this to happen?
What should I try next?
Thank you,
Justin Murray
Software Engineer
jmur...@aerotech.com
Aerotech, Inc.
101 Zeta Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
412-963-7470
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe:
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/opt
27 matches
Mail list logo
