Has anyone used this in their project ?  Im looking for a way to parse out variables and their types , I havent actually looked at it yet was wondering if anyone has done work with it.

Thanks,
C

I tried to compile it a while back but it's missing a few key ingredients. Maybe Walter cleared some of that up (some of it was my own misunderstanding)

(You pretty much need to make a wrapper around his backend, which you don't have the source or even the interface to.)

Otherwise it's pretty clean C-style C++, should be pretty easy to work with.

Sean

"Charles" <sanders-consulting@comcast.net> wrote in message news:bsffca$1k95$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Has anyone used this in their project ?  Im looking for a way to parse out variables and their types , I havent actually looked at it yet was
wondering
> if anyone has done work with it.
>
> Thanks,
> C

Cool, maybe Walter has a makefile for it ? <nudge,nudge > :)

C

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean@verizon.net> wrote in message news:bsfkac$1s6a$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I tried to compile it a while back but it's missing a few key ingredients. Maybe Walter cleared some of that up (some of it was my own misunderstanding)
>
> (You pretty much need to make a wrapper around his backend, which you
don't
> have the source or even the interface to.)
>
> Otherwise it's pretty clean C-style C++, should be pretty easy to work
with.
>
> Sean
>
> "Charles" <sanders-consulting@comcast.net> wrote in message news:bsffca$1k95$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Has anyone used this in their project ?  Im looking for a way to parse
out
> > variables and their types , I havent actually looked at it yet was
> wondering
> > if anyone has done work with it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > C
>
>

Sean L. Palmer wrote:
> I tried to compile it a while back but it's missing a few key ingredients.
> Maybe Walter cleared some of that up (some of it was my own
> misunderstanding)

It misses critical header files, which belong to back-end.

> (You pretty much need to make a wrapper around his backend, which you don't
> have the source or even the interface to.)

The good ol' DLI fills the gap. Theoretically. There would still be a lot to do.

> Otherwise it's pretty clean C-style C++, should be pretty easy to work with.

But it's HUGE.

I'd say it might rather make sense to write a grammar for a OO parser generator such as Antlr.

I was going to hack up some basic back-end for D like C output, but i give up. I simply don't have the time.

-eye

Charles wrote:
> Cool, maybe Walter has a makefile for it ? <nudge,nudge > :)
> 
> C

Don't be a wimp! The problem is not the makefile. With such an attitude, you will definately not draw any wisdom from the front-end.

-eye

True I'm lazy :P.  I actually think it will be easier to write my own, thats probably the route Ill go.

Aren't you involved with the GNU port ? How's that going ?

C


"Ilya Minkov" <minkov@cs.tum.edu> wrote in message news:bsha8o$1jjd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Charles wrote:
> > Cool, maybe Walter has a makefile for it ? <nudge,nudge > :)
> >
> > C
>
> Don't be a wimp! The problem is not the makefile. With such an attitude, you will definately not draw any wisdom from the front-end.
>
> -eye
>

Not that anyone is currently involved with a GNU port. ;) Jan has no time, myself neither. I had made the first year of studies too simple for myself, and now i'm in trouble.

The first step would be to write a simple dumper, which would show that i have gained enough of understanding the DMD front-end. This would allow to create the first D->C compiler, which should be enough for the first. And also stuff like interpreters. The "real" GCC connection comes with the next enthusiastic generation of D users. ;)

For the code analyser you definately need much less of the frontend. I have not read the parser source, so i cannot tell you whether it makes sense to reuse it or not. Anyway, since it's a recursive descent, even if you would be putting your own grammar together, the source should give a lot of clues as to how the BNF should look. It definately makes sense to use LL(inf) generator, which will make sure the grammar will be fairly valid.

-eye

Charles wrote:
> True I'm lazy :P.  I actually think it will be easier to write my own, thats
> probably the route Ill go.
> 
> Aren't you involved with the GNU port ? How's that going ?
> 
> C

LL(inf) ?  lex & yacc is ll(1) right ?  Do you know of any parser generators
for LL(inifty?) ?

C


"Ilya Minkov" <minkov@cs.tum.edu> wrote in message news:bsjj0h$2f0t$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Not that anyone is currently involved with a GNU port. ;) Jan has no time, myself neither. I had made the first year of studies too simple for myself, and now i'm in trouble.
>
> The first step would be to write a simple dumper, which would show that i have gained enough of understanding the DMD front-end. This would allow to create the first D->C compiler, which should be enough for the first. And also stuff like interpreters. The "real" GCC connection comes with the next enthusiastic generation of D users. ;)
>
> For the code analyser you definately need much less of the frontend. I have not read the parser source, so i cannot tell you whether it makes sense to reuse it or not. Anyway, since it's a recursive descent, even if you would be putting your own grammar together, the source should give a lot of clues as to how the BNF should look. It definately makes sense to use LL(inf) generator, which will make sure the grammar will be fairly valid.
>
> -eye
>
> Charles wrote:
> > True I'm lazy :P.  I actually think it will be easier to write my own,
thats
> > probably the route Ill go.
> >
> > Aren't you involved with the GNU port ? How's that going ?
> >
> > C
>

Antlr is LL(k)  (effectively infinity)

http://www.antlr.org/

lex & yacc are LALR

Sean

"C" <dont@respond.com> wrote in message news:bt4q7k$r15$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> LL(inf) ?  lex & yacc is ll(1) right ?  Do you know of any parser
generators
> for LL(inifty?) ?