| From: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone? |
| Date: | 2000-01-19 07:42:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20000119084205.A455@fam-meskes.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 12:38:18AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> is, I'm sure the parser/scanner speed is the least of our problems. But I
> thunk especially ecpg could benefit from this. Btw., gperf is used by GCC,
Why do you think ecpg would benefit more from it than the backend? :-)
Both parser are mostly the same. In fact running ecpg appears to use a lot
less time than the subsequent gcc run.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes | Go SF 49ers!
Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go Rhein Fire!
Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651 | Use Debian GNU/Linux!
Email: Michael(at)Fam-Meskes(dot)De | Use PostgreSQL!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2000-01-19 07:43:37 | Re: [HACKERS] gperf anyone? |
| Previous Message | Micheal H. | 2000-01-19 06:55:13 | examples not included |