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?
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2002-03-31 03:29:13|
|Subject: Re: compile bug in HEAD?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-03-31 00:26:01|
|Subject: Re: rules and default values |