On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 05:09:30PM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 5:39 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > With our scanner keywords list now more cache-aware, and with us
> > planning to use Bison for years to come, has anyone ever looked at
> > reordering the bison state machine
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 5:39 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> With our scanner keywords list now more cache-aware, and with us
> planning to use Bison for years to come, has anyone ever looked at
> reordering the bison state machine array to be more cache aware, e.g.,
> having common states next to eac
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 06:55:56PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 12:49:50AM +0100, David Fetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 05:38:59PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > With our scanner keywords list now more cache-aware, and with us
> > > planning to use Bison for ye
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 12:49:50AM +0100, David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 05:38:59PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > With our scanner keywords list now more cache-aware, and with us
> > planning to use Bison for years to come, has anyone ever looked at
> > reordering the bison state m
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 05:38:59PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> With our scanner keywords list now more cache-aware, and with us
> planning to use Bison for years to come, has anyone ever looked at
> reordering the bison state machine array to be more cache aware, e.g.,
> having common states next
With our scanner keywords list now more cache-aware, and with us
planning to use Bison for years to come, has anyone ever looked at
reordering the bison state machine array to be more cache aware, e.g.,
having common states next to each other rather than scattered around the
array?
--
Bruce Mom
