joepie91
/
pegjs
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity
You cannot select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
redux
master
Branches Tags
${ item.name }
Create tag ${ searchTerm }
Create branch ${ searchTerm }
from '0306a76152'
${ noResults }
pegjs/lib/compiler/passes/generate-javascript.js

1002 lines
31 KiB
JavaScript
Raw Normal View History Unescape Escape

Utility functions cleanup: Split lib/utils.js Split lib/utils.js into multiple files. Some of the functions were generic, these were moved into files in lib/utils. Other funtions were specific for the compiler, these were moved to files in lib/compiler. This commit only moves functions around -- there is no renaming and cleanup performed. Both will come later.
11 years ago
var arrays = require("../../utils/arrays"),
asts = require("../asts"),
op = require("../opcodes"),
js = require("../javascript");
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
/* Generates parser JavaScript code. */
generate-javascript.js: s/generateJavaScript/generateJavascript/ This makes the variable name in sync with pass name in lib/compiler.js.
11 years ago
function generateJavascript(ast, options) {
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
/* These only indent non-empty lines to avoid trailing whitespace. */
function indent2(code) { return code.replace(/^(.+)$/gm, ' $1'); }
function indent4(code) { return code.replace(/^(.+)$/gm, ' $1'); }
function indent8(code) { return code.replace(/^(.+)$/gm, ' $1'); }
function indent10(code) { return code.replace(/^(.+)$/gm, ' $1'); }
function generateTables() {
if (options.optimize === "size") {
return [
'peg$consts = [',
indent2(ast.consts.join(',\n')),
'],',
'',
'peg$bytecode = [',
Formatting
11 years ago
indent2(arrays.map(ast.rules, function(rule) {
return 'peg$decode("'
+ js.stringEscape(arrays.map(
rule.bytecode,
function(b) { return String.fromCharCode(b + 32); }
).join(''))
+ '")';
}).join(',\n')),
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
'],'
].join('\n');
} else {
Utility functions cleanup: Split lib/utils.js Split lib/utils.js into multiple files. Some of the functions were generic, these were moved into files in lib/utils. Other funtions were specific for the compiler, these were moved to files in lib/compiler. This commit only moves functions around -- there is no renaming and cleanup performed. Both will come later.
11 years ago
return arrays.map(
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
ast.consts,
function(c, i) { return 'peg$c' + i + ' = ' + c + ','; }
).join('\n');
}
}
function generateCacheHeader(ruleIndexCode) {
return [
'var key = peg$currPos * ' + ast.rules.length + ' + ' + ruleIndexCode + ',',
' cached = peg$cache[key];',
'',
'if (cached) {',
' peg$currPos = cached.nextPos;',
' return cached.result;',
'}',
''
].join('\n');
}
function generateCacheFooter(resultCode) {
return [
'',
'peg$cache[key] = { nextPos: peg$currPos, result: ' + resultCode + ' };'
].join('\n');
}
function generateInterpreter() {
var parts = [];
function generateCondition(cond, argsLength) {
var baseLength = argsLength + 3,
thenLengthCode = 'bc[ip + ' + (baseLength - 2) + ']',
elseLengthCode = 'bc[ip + ' + (baseLength - 1) + ']';
return [
'ends.push(end);',
'ips.push(ip + ' + baseLength + ' + ' + thenLengthCode + ' + ' + elseLengthCode + ');',
'',
'if (' + cond + ') {',
' end = ip + ' + baseLength + ' + ' + thenLengthCode + ';',
' ip += ' + baseLength + ';',
'} else {',
' end = ip + ' + baseLength + ' + ' + thenLengthCode + ' + ' + elseLengthCode + ';',
' ip += ' + baseLength + ' + ' + thenLengthCode + ';',
'}',
'',
'break;'
].join('\n');
}
function generateLoop(cond) {
var baseLength = 2,
bodyLengthCode = 'bc[ip + ' + (baseLength - 1) + ']';
return [
'if (' + cond + ') {',
' ends.push(end);',
' ips.push(ip);',
'',
' end = ip + ' + baseLength + ' + ' + bodyLengthCode + ';',
' ip += ' + baseLength + ';',
'} else {',
' ip += ' + baseLength + ' + ' + bodyLengthCode + ';',
'}',
'',
'break;'
].join('\n');
}
function generateCall() {
Refine error handling further Before this commit, the |expected| and |error| functions didn't halt the parsing immediately, but triggered a regular match failure. After they were called, the parser could backtrack, try another branches, and only if no other branch succeeded, it triggered an exception with information possibly based on parameters passed to the |expected| or |error| function (this depended on positions where failures in other branches have occurred). While nice in theory, this solution didn't work well in practice. There were at least two problems: 1. Action expression could have easily triggered a match failure later in the input than the action itself. This resulted in the action-triggered failure to be shadowed by the expression-triggered one. Consider the following example: integer = digits:[0-9]+ { var result = parseInt(digits.join(""), 10); if (result % 2 === 0) { error("The number must be an odd integer."); return; } return result; } Given input "2", the |[0-9]+| expression would record a match failure at position 1 (an unsuccessful attempt to parse yet another digit after "2"). However, a failure triggered by the |error| call would occur at position 0. This problem could have been solved by silencing match failures in action expressions, but that would lead to severe performance problems (yes, I tried and measured). Other possible solutions are hacks which I didn't want to introduce into PEG.js. 2. Triggering a match failure in action code could have lead to unexpected backtracking. Consider the following example: class = "[" (charRange / char)* "]" charRange = begin:char "-" end:char { if (begin.data.charCodeAt(0) > end.data.charCodeAt(0)) { error("Invalid character range: " + begin + "-" + end + "."); } // ... } char = [a-zA-Z0-9_\-] Given input "[b-a]", the |charRange| rule would fail, but the parser would try the |char| rule and succeed repeatedly, resulting in "b-a" being parsed as a sequence of three |char|'s, which it is not. This problem could have been solved by using negative predicates, but that would complicate the grammar and still wouldn't get rid of unintuitive behavior. Given these problems I decided to change the semantics of the |expected| and |error| functions. They don't interact with regular match failure mechanism anymore, but they cause and immediate parse failure by throwing an exception. I think this is more intuitive behavior with less harmful side effects. The disadvantage of the new approach is that one can't backtrack from an action-triggered error. I don't see this as a big deal as I think this will be rarely needed and one can always use a semantic predicate as a workaround. Speed impact ------------ Before: 993.84 kB/s After: 998.05 kB/s Difference: 0.42% Size impact ----------- Before: 1019968 b After: 975434 b Difference: -4.37% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
var baseLength = 4,
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
paramsLengthCode = 'bc[ip + ' + (baseLength - 1) + ']';
return [
'params = bc.slice(ip + ' + baseLength + ', ip + ' + baseLength + ' + ' + paramsLengthCode + ');',
'for (i = 0; i < ' + paramsLengthCode + '; i++) {',
' params[i] = stack[stack.length - 1 - params[i]];',
'}',
'',
Refine error handling further Before this commit, the |expected| and |error| functions didn't halt the parsing immediately, but triggered a regular match failure. After they were called, the parser could backtrack, try another branches, and only if no other branch succeeded, it triggered an exception with information possibly based on parameters passed to the |expected| or |error| function (this depended on positions where failures in other branches have occurred). While nice in theory, this solution didn't work well in practice. There were at least two problems: 1. Action expression could have easily triggered a match failure later in the input than the action itself. This resulted in the action-triggered failure to be shadowed by the expression-triggered one. Consider the following example: integer = digits:[0-9]+ { var result = parseInt(digits.join(""), 10); if (result % 2 === 0) { error("The number must be an odd integer."); return; } return result; } Given input "2", the |[0-9]+| expression would record a match failure at position 1 (an unsuccessful attempt to parse yet another digit after "2"). However, a failure triggered by the |error| call would occur at position 0. This problem could have been solved by silencing match failures in action expressions, but that would lead to severe performance problems (yes, I tried and measured). Other possible solutions are hacks which I didn't want to introduce into PEG.js. 2. Triggering a match failure in action code could have lead to unexpected backtracking. Consider the following example: class = "[" (charRange / char)* "]" charRange = begin:char "-" end:char { if (begin.data.charCodeAt(0) > end.data.charCodeAt(0)) { error("Invalid character range: " + begin + "-" + end + "."); } // ... } char = [a-zA-Z0-9_\-] Given input "[b-a]", the |charRange| rule would fail, but the parser would try the |char| rule and succeed repeatedly, resulting in "b-a" being parsed as a sequence of three |char|'s, which it is not. This problem could have been solved by using negative predicates, but that would complicate the grammar and still wouldn't get rid of unintuitive behavior. Given these problems I decided to change the semantics of the |expected| and |error| functions. They don't interact with regular match failure mechanism anymore, but they cause and immediate parse failure by throwing an exception. I think this is more intuitive behavior with less harmful side effects. The disadvantage of the new approach is that one can't backtrack from an action-triggered error. I don't see this as a big deal as I think this will be rarely needed and one can always use a semantic predicate as a workaround. Speed impact ------------ Before: 993.84 kB/s After: 998.05 kB/s Difference: 0.42% Size impact ----------- Before: 1019968 b After: 975434 b Difference: -4.37% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
'stack.splice(',
' stack.length - bc[ip + 2],',
' bc[ip + 2],',
' peg$consts[bc[ip + 1]].apply(null, params)',
');',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
'',
'ip += ' + baseLength + ' + ' + paramsLengthCode + ';',
'break;'
].join('\n');
}
parts.push([
'function peg$decode(s) {',
' var bc = new Array(s.length), i;',
'',
' for (i = 0; i < s.length; i++) {',
' bc[i] = s.charCodeAt(i) - 32;',
' }',
'',
' return bc;',
'}',
'',
'function peg$parseRule(index) {',
' var bc = peg$bytecode[index],',
' ip = 0,',
' ips = [],',
' end = bc.length,',
' ends = [],',
' stack = [],',
Refine error handling further Before this commit, the |expected| and |error| functions didn't halt the parsing immediately, but triggered a regular match failure. After they were called, the parser could backtrack, try another branches, and only if no other branch succeeded, it triggered an exception with information possibly based on parameters passed to the |expected| or |error| function (this depended on positions where failures in other branches have occurred). While nice in theory, this solution didn't work well in practice. There were at least two problems: 1. Action expression could have easily triggered a match failure later in the input than the action itself. This resulted in the action-triggered failure to be shadowed by the expression-triggered one. Consider the following example: integer = digits:[0-9]+ { var result = parseInt(digits.join(""), 10); if (result % 2 === 0) { error("The number must be an odd integer."); return; } return result; } Given input "2", the |[0-9]+| expression would record a match failure at position 1 (an unsuccessful attempt to parse yet another digit after "2"). However, a failure triggered by the |error| call would occur at position 0. This problem could have been solved by silencing match failures in action expressions, but that would lead to severe performance problems (yes, I tried and measured). Other possible solutions are hacks which I didn't want to introduce into PEG.js. 2. Triggering a match failure in action code could have lead to unexpected backtracking. Consider the following example: class = "[" (charRange / char)* "]" charRange = begin:char "-" end:char { if (begin.data.charCodeAt(0) > end.data.charCodeAt(0)) { error("Invalid character range: " + begin + "-" + end + "."); } // ... } char = [a-zA-Z0-9_\-] Given input "[b-a]", the |charRange| rule would fail, but the parser would try the |char| rule and succeed repeatedly, resulting in "b-a" being parsed as a sequence of three |char|'s, which it is not. This problem could have been solved by using negative predicates, but that would complicate the grammar and still wouldn't get rid of unintuitive behavior. Given these problems I decided to change the semantics of the |expected| and |error| functions. They don't interact with regular match failure mechanism anymore, but they cause and immediate parse failure by throwing an exception. I think this is more intuitive behavior with less harmful side effects. The disadvantage of the new approach is that one can't backtrack from an action-triggered error. I don't see this as a big deal as I think this will be rarely needed and one can always use a semantic predicate as a workaround. Speed impact ------------ Before: 993.84 kB/s After: 998.05 kB/s Difference: 0.42% Size impact ----------- Before: 1019968 b After: 975434 b Difference: -4.37% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
' params, i;',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
''
].join('\n'));
if (options.cache) {
parts.push(indent2(generateCacheHeader('index')));
}
parts.push([
/*
* The point of the outer loop and the |ips| & |ends| stacks is to avoid
* recursive calls for interpreting parts of bytecode. In other words, we
* implement the |interpret| operation of the abstract machine without
* function calls. Such calls would likely slow the parser down and more
* importantly cause stack overflows for complex grammars.
*/
' while (true) {',
' while (ip < end) {',
' switch (bc[ip]) {',
Fix comment alignment in lib/compiler/passes/generate-javascript.js
11 years ago
' case ' + op.PUSH + ':', // PUSH c
Implement additional PUSH_* bytecode instructions Implement the following bytecode instructions: * PUSH_UNDEFINED * PUSH_NULL * PUSH_FAILED * PUSH_EMPTY_ARRAY These instructions push simple JavaSccript values to the stack directly, without going through constants. This makes the bytecode slightly shorter and the bytecode generator somewhat simpler. Also note that PUSH_EMPTY_ARRAY allows us to avoid a hack which protects the [] constant from modification.
11 years ago
' stack.push(peg$consts[bc[ip + 1]]);',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' ip += 2;',
' break;',
'',
Implement additional PUSH_* bytecode instructions Implement the following bytecode instructions: * PUSH_UNDEFINED * PUSH_NULL * PUSH_FAILED * PUSH_EMPTY_ARRAY These instructions push simple JavaSccript values to the stack directly, without going through constants. This makes the bytecode slightly shorter and the bytecode generator somewhat simpler. Also note that PUSH_EMPTY_ARRAY allows us to avoid a hack which protects the [] constant from modification.
11 years ago
' case ' + op.PUSH_UNDEFINED + ':', // PUSH_UNDEFINED
' stack.push(void 0);',
' ip++;',
' break;',
'',
' case ' + op.PUSH_NULL + ':', // PUSH_NULL
' stack.push(null);',
' ip++;',
' break;',
'',
' case ' + op.PUSH_FAILED + ':', // PUSH_FAILED
' stack.push(peg$FAILED);',
' ip++;',
' break;',
'',
' case ' + op.PUSH_EMPTY_ARRAY + ':', // PUSH_EMPTY_ARRAY
' stack.push([]);',
' ip++;',
' break;',
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.PUSH_CURR_POS + ':', // PUSH_CURR_POS
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' stack.push(peg$currPos);',
' ip++;',
' break;',
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.POP + ':', // POP
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' stack.pop();',
' ip++;',
' break;',
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.POP_CURR_POS + ':', // POP_CURR_POS
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' peg$currPos = stack.pop();',
' ip++;',
' break;',
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.POP_N + ':', // POP_N n
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' stack.length -= bc[ip + 1];',
' ip += 2;',
' break;',
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.NIP + ':', // NIP
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' stack.splice(-2, 1);',
' ip++;',
' break;',
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.APPEND + ':', // APPEND
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' stack[stack.length - 2].push(stack.pop());',
' ip++;',
' break;',
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.WRAP + ':', // WRAP n
Avoid |Array.prototype.splice| call with one parameter The one-parameter |Array.prototype.splice| call is a SpiderMonkey extension. Apparently, IE doesn't implement it (unlike other supported browsers), so we need to replace it with two-parameter version.
11 years ago
' stack.push(stack.splice(stack.length - bc[ip + 1], bc[ip + 1]));',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' ip += 2;',
' break;',
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.TEXT + ':', // TEXT
Improve semantics of the TEXT bytecode instruction The TEXT instruction now replaces position at the top of the stack with the input from that position until the current position. This is simpler and cleaner semantics than the previous one, where TEXT also popped an additional value from the stack and kept the position there.
11 years ago
' stack.push(input.substring(stack.pop(), peg$currPos));',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' ip++;',
' break;',
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.IF + ':', // IF t, f
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
indent10(generateCondition('stack[stack.length - 1]', 0)),
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.IF_ERROR + ':', // IF_ERROR t, f
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
indent10(generateCondition(
Error handling: Use a special value (not |null|) to indicate failure Using a special value to indicate match failure instead of |null| allows actions to return |null| as a regular value. This simplifies e.g. the JSON parser. Note the special value is internal and intentionally undocumented. This means that there is currently no official way how to trigger a match failure from an action. This is a temporary state which will be fixed soon. The negative performance impact (see below) is probably caused by changing lot of comparisons against |null| (which likely check the value against a fixed constant representing |null| in the interpreter) to comparisons against the special value (which likely check the value against another value in the interpreter). Implements part of #198. Speed impact ------------ Before: 1146.82 kB/s After: 1031.25 kB/s Difference: -10.08% Size impact ----------- Before: 950817 b After: 973269 b Difference: 2.36% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
'stack[stack.length - 1] === peg$FAILED',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
0
)),
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.IF_NOT_ERROR + ':', // IF_NOT_ERROR t, f
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
indent10(
Error handling: Use a special value (not |null|) to indicate failure Using a special value to indicate match failure instead of |null| allows actions to return |null| as a regular value. This simplifies e.g. the JSON parser. Note the special value is internal and intentionally undocumented. This means that there is currently no official way how to trigger a match failure from an action. This is a temporary state which will be fixed soon. The negative performance impact (see below) is probably caused by changing lot of comparisons against |null| (which likely check the value against a fixed constant representing |null| in the interpreter) to comparisons against the special value (which likely check the value against another value in the interpreter). Implements part of #198. Speed impact ------------ Before: 1146.82 kB/s After: 1031.25 kB/s Difference: -10.08% Size impact ----------- Before: 950817 b After: 973269 b Difference: 2.36% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
generateCondition('stack[stack.length - 1] !== peg$FAILED',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
0
)),
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.WHILE_NOT_ERROR + ':', // WHILE_NOT_ERROR b
Error handling: Use a special value (not |null|) to indicate failure Using a special value to indicate match failure instead of |null| allows actions to return |null| as a regular value. This simplifies e.g. the JSON parser. Note the special value is internal and intentionally undocumented. This means that there is currently no official way how to trigger a match failure from an action. This is a temporary state which will be fixed soon. The negative performance impact (see below) is probably caused by changing lot of comparisons against |null| (which likely check the value against a fixed constant representing |null| in the interpreter) to comparisons against the special value (which likely check the value against another value in the interpreter). Implements part of #198. Speed impact ------------ Before: 1146.82 kB/s After: 1031.25 kB/s Difference: -10.08% Size impact ----------- Before: 950817 b After: 973269 b Difference: 2.36% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
indent10(generateLoop('stack[stack.length - 1] !== peg$FAILED')),
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.MATCH_ANY + ':', // MATCH_ANY a, f, ...
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
indent10(generateCondition('input.length > peg$currPos', 0)),
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.MATCH_STRING + ':', // MATCH_STRING s, a, f, ...
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
indent10(generateCondition(
'input.substr(peg$currPos, peg$consts[bc[ip + 1]].length) === peg$consts[bc[ip + 1]]',
1
)),
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.MATCH_STRING_IC + ':', // MATCH_STRING_IC s, a, f, ...
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
indent10(generateCondition(
'input.substr(peg$currPos, peg$consts[bc[ip + 1]].length).toLowerCase() === peg$consts[bc[ip + 1]]',
1
)),
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.MATCH_REGEXP + ':', // MATCH_REGEXP r, a, f, ...
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
indent10(generateCondition(
'peg$consts[bc[ip + 1]].test(input.charAt(peg$currPos))',
1
)),
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.ACCEPT_N + ':', // ACCEPT_N n
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' stack.push(input.substr(peg$currPos, bc[ip + 1]));',
' peg$currPos += bc[ip + 1];',
' ip += 2;',
' break;',
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.ACCEPT_STRING + ':', // ACCEPT_STRING s
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' stack.push(peg$consts[bc[ip + 1]]);',
' peg$currPos += peg$consts[bc[ip + 1]].length;',
' ip += 2;',
' break;',
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.FAIL + ':', // FAIL e
Error handling: Use a special value (not |null|) to indicate failure Using a special value to indicate match failure instead of |null| allows actions to return |null| as a regular value. This simplifies e.g. the JSON parser. Note the special value is internal and intentionally undocumented. This means that there is currently no official way how to trigger a match failure from an action. This is a temporary state which will be fixed soon. The negative performance impact (see below) is probably caused by changing lot of comparisons against |null| (which likely check the value against a fixed constant representing |null| in the interpreter) to comparisons against the special value (which likely check the value against another value in the interpreter). Implements part of #198. Speed impact ------------ Before: 1146.82 kB/s After: 1031.25 kB/s Difference: -10.08% Size impact ----------- Before: 950817 b After: 973269 b Difference: 2.36% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
' stack.push(peg$FAILED);',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' if (peg$silentFails === 0) {',
Refine error handling further Before this commit, the |expected| and |error| functions didn't halt the parsing immediately, but triggered a regular match failure. After they were called, the parser could backtrack, try another branches, and only if no other branch succeeded, it triggered an exception with information possibly based on parameters passed to the |expected| or |error| function (this depended on positions where failures in other branches have occurred). While nice in theory, this solution didn't work well in practice. There were at least two problems: 1. Action expression could have easily triggered a match failure later in the input than the action itself. This resulted in the action-triggered failure to be shadowed by the expression-triggered one. Consider the following example: integer = digits:[0-9]+ { var result = parseInt(digits.join(""), 10); if (result % 2 === 0) { error("The number must be an odd integer."); return; } return result; } Given input "2", the |[0-9]+| expression would record a match failure at position 1 (an unsuccessful attempt to parse yet another digit after "2"). However, a failure triggered by the |error| call would occur at position 0. This problem could have been solved by silencing match failures in action expressions, but that would lead to severe performance problems (yes, I tried and measured). Other possible solutions are hacks which I didn't want to introduce into PEG.js. 2. Triggering a match failure in action code could have lead to unexpected backtracking. Consider the following example: class = "[" (charRange / char)* "]" charRange = begin:char "-" end:char { if (begin.data.charCodeAt(0) > end.data.charCodeAt(0)) { error("Invalid character range: " + begin + "-" + end + "."); } // ... } char = [a-zA-Z0-9_\-] Given input "[b-a]", the |charRange| rule would fail, but the parser would try the |char| rule and succeed repeatedly, resulting in "b-a" being parsed as a sequence of three |char|'s, which it is not. This problem could have been solved by using negative predicates, but that would complicate the grammar and still wouldn't get rid of unintuitive behavior. Given these problems I decided to change the semantics of the |expected| and |error| functions. They don't interact with regular match failure mechanism anymore, but they cause and immediate parse failure by throwing an exception. I think this is more intuitive behavior with less harmful side effects. The disadvantage of the new approach is that one can't backtrack from an action-triggered error. I don't see this as a big deal as I think this will be rarely needed and one can always use a semantic predicate as a workaround. Speed impact ------------ Before: 993.84 kB/s After: 998.05 kB/s Difference: 0.42% Size impact ----------- Before: 1019968 b After: 975434 b Difference: -4.37% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
' peg$fail(peg$consts[bc[ip + 1]]);',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' }',
' ip += 2;',
' break;',
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.REPORT_SAVED_POS + ':', // REPORT_SAVED_POS p
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' peg$reportedPos = stack[stack.length - 1 - bc[ip + 1]];',
' ip += 2;',
' break;',
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.REPORT_CURR_POS + ':', // REPORT_CURR_POS
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' peg$reportedPos = peg$currPos;',
' ip++;',
' break;',
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.CALL + ':', // CALL f, n, pc, p1, p2, ..., pN
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
indent10(generateCall()),
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.RULE + ':', // RULE r
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' stack.push(peg$parseRule(bc[ip + 1]));',
' ip += 2;',
' break;',
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.SILENT_FAILS_ON + ':', // SILENT_FAILS_ON
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' peg$silentFails++;',
' ip++;',
' break;',
'',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' case ' + op.SILENT_FAILS_OFF + ':', // SILENT_FAILS_OFF
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' peg$silentFails--;',
' ip++;',
' break;',
'',
' default:',
' throw new Error("Invalid opcode: " + bc[ip] + ".");',
' }',
' }',
'',
' if (ends.length > 0) {',
' end = ends.pop();',
' ip = ips.pop();',
' } else {',
' break;',
' }',
' }'
].join('\n'));
if (options.cache) {
parts.push(indent2(generateCacheFooter('stack[0]')));
}
parts.push([
'',
' return stack[0];',
'}'
].join('\n'));
return parts.join('\n');
}
function generateRuleFunction(rule) {
var parts = [], code;
function c(i) { return "peg$c" + i; } // |consts[i]| of the abstract machine
function s(i) { return "s" + i; } // |stack[i]| of the abstract machine
var stack = {
sp: -1,
maxSp: -1,
push: function(exprCode) {
var code = s(++this.sp) + ' = ' + exprCode + ';';
if (this.sp > this.maxSp) { this.maxSp = this.sp; }
return code;
},
pop: function() {
var n, values;
if (arguments.length === 0) {
return s(this.sp--);
} else {
n = arguments[0];
Utility functions cleanup: Split lib/utils.js Split lib/utils.js into multiple files. Some of the functions were generic, these were moved into files in lib/utils. Other funtions were specific for the compiler, these were moved to files in lib/compiler. This commit only moves functions around -- there is no renaming and cleanup performed. Both will come later.
11 years ago
values = arrays.map(arrays.range(this.sp - n + 1, this.sp + 1), s);
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
this.sp -= n;
return values;
}
},
top: function() {
return s(this.sp);
},
index: function(i) {
return s(this.sp - i);
}
};
function compile(bc) {
var ip = 0,
end = bc.length,
parts = [],
value;
function compileCondition(cond, argCount) {
var baseLength = argCount + 3,
thenLength = bc[ip + baseLength - 2],
elseLength = bc[ip + baseLength - 1],
baseSp = stack.sp,
Assert that generated bytecode manipulates stack correctly There are two invariants in generated bytecode related to the stack: 1. Branches of a condition must move the stack pointer in the same way. 2. Body of a loop can't move the stack pointer. These invariants were always true, but they were not checked. Now we check them at least when compiling with optimization for speed, because there we analyze the stack pointer movements statically.
11 years ago
thenCode, elseCode, thenSp, elseSp;
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
ip += baseLength;
thenCode = compile(bc.slice(ip, ip + thenLength));
Assert that generated bytecode manipulates stack correctly There are two invariants in generated bytecode related to the stack: 1. Branches of a condition must move the stack pointer in the same way. 2. Body of a loop can't move the stack pointer. These invariants were always true, but they were not checked. Now we check them at least when compiling with optimization for speed, because there we analyze the stack pointer movements statically.
11 years ago
thenSp = stack.sp;
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
ip += thenLength;
Assert that generated bytecode manipulates stack correctly There are two invariants in generated bytecode related to the stack: 1. Branches of a condition must move the stack pointer in the same way. 2. Body of a loop can't move the stack pointer. These invariants were always true, but they were not checked. Now we check them at least when compiling with optimization for speed, because there we analyze the stack pointer movements statically.
11 years ago
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
if (elseLength > 0) {
stack.sp = baseSp;
elseCode = compile(bc.slice(ip, ip + elseLength));
Assert that generated bytecode manipulates stack correctly There are two invariants in generated bytecode related to the stack: 1. Branches of a condition must move the stack pointer in the same way. 2. Body of a loop can't move the stack pointer. These invariants were always true, but they were not checked. Now we check them at least when compiling with optimization for speed, because there we analyze the stack pointer movements statically.
11 years ago
elseSp = stack.sp;
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
ip += elseLength;
Assert that generated bytecode manipulates stack correctly There are two invariants in generated bytecode related to the stack: 1. Branches of a condition must move the stack pointer in the same way. 2. Body of a loop can't move the stack pointer. These invariants were always true, but they were not checked. Now we check them at least when compiling with optimization for speed, because there we analyze the stack pointer movements statically.
11 years ago
if (thenSp !== elseSp) {
throw new Error(
"Branches of a condition must move the stack pointer in the same way."
);
}
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
}
parts.push('if (' + cond + ') {');
parts.push(indent2(thenCode));
if (elseLength > 0) {
parts.push('} else {');
parts.push(indent2(elseCode));
}
parts.push('}');
}
function compileLoop(cond) {
var baseLength = 2,
bodyLength = bc[ip + baseLength - 1],
Assert that generated bytecode manipulates stack correctly There are two invariants in generated bytecode related to the stack: 1. Branches of a condition must move the stack pointer in the same way. 2. Body of a loop can't move the stack pointer. These invariants were always true, but they were not checked. Now we check them at least when compiling with optimization for speed, because there we analyze the stack pointer movements statically.
11 years ago
baseSp = stack.sp,
bodyCode, bodySp;
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
ip += baseLength;
bodyCode = compile(bc.slice(ip, ip + bodyLength));
Assert that generated bytecode manipulates stack correctly There are two invariants in generated bytecode related to the stack: 1. Branches of a condition must move the stack pointer in the same way. 2. Body of a loop can't move the stack pointer. These invariants were always true, but they were not checked. Now we check them at least when compiling with optimization for speed, because there we analyze the stack pointer movements statically.
11 years ago
bodySp = stack.sp;
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
ip += bodyLength;
Assert that generated bytecode manipulates stack correctly There are two invariants in generated bytecode related to the stack: 1. Branches of a condition must move the stack pointer in the same way. 2. Body of a loop can't move the stack pointer. These invariants were always true, but they were not checked. Now we check them at least when compiling with optimization for speed, because there we analyze the stack pointer movements statically.
11 years ago
if (bodySp !== baseSp) {
throw new Error("Body of a loop can't move the stack pointer.");
}
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
parts.push('while (' + cond + ') {');
parts.push(indent2(bodyCode));
parts.push('}');
}
Remove various unused variables and function parameters
11 years ago
function compileCall() {
Refine error handling further Before this commit, the |expected| and |error| functions didn't halt the parsing immediately, but triggered a regular match failure. After they were called, the parser could backtrack, try another branches, and only if no other branch succeeded, it triggered an exception with information possibly based on parameters passed to the |expected| or |error| function (this depended on positions where failures in other branches have occurred). While nice in theory, this solution didn't work well in practice. There were at least two problems: 1. Action expression could have easily triggered a match failure later in the input than the action itself. This resulted in the action-triggered failure to be shadowed by the expression-triggered one. Consider the following example: integer = digits:[0-9]+ { var result = parseInt(digits.join(""), 10); if (result % 2 === 0) { error("The number must be an odd integer."); return; } return result; } Given input "2", the |[0-9]+| expression would record a match failure at position 1 (an unsuccessful attempt to parse yet another digit after "2"). However, a failure triggered by the |error| call would occur at position 0. This problem could have been solved by silencing match failures in action expressions, but that would lead to severe performance problems (yes, I tried and measured). Other possible solutions are hacks which I didn't want to introduce into PEG.js. 2. Triggering a match failure in action code could have lead to unexpected backtracking. Consider the following example: class = "[" (charRange / char)* "]" charRange = begin:char "-" end:char { if (begin.data.charCodeAt(0) > end.data.charCodeAt(0)) { error("Invalid character range: " + begin + "-" + end + "."); } // ... } char = [a-zA-Z0-9_\-] Given input "[b-a]", the |charRange| rule would fail, but the parser would try the |char| rule and succeed repeatedly, resulting in "b-a" being parsed as a sequence of three |char|'s, which it is not. This problem could have been solved by using negative predicates, but that would complicate the grammar and still wouldn't get rid of unintuitive behavior. Given these problems I decided to change the semantics of the |expected| and |error| functions. They don't interact with regular match failure mechanism anymore, but they cause and immediate parse failure by throwing an exception. I think this is more intuitive behavior with less harmful side effects. The disadvantage of the new approach is that one can't backtrack from an action-triggered error. I don't see this as a big deal as I think this will be rarely needed and one can always use a semantic predicate as a workaround. Speed impact ------------ Before: 993.84 kB/s After: 998.05 kB/s Difference: 0.42% Size impact ----------- Before: 1019968 b After: 975434 b Difference: -4.37% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
var baseLength = 4,
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
paramsLength = bc[ip + baseLength - 1];
var value = c(bc[ip + 1]) + '('
Utility functions cleanup: Split lib/utils.js Split lib/utils.js into multiple files. Some of the functions were generic, these were moved into files in lib/utils. Other funtions were specific for the compiler, these were moved to files in lib/compiler. This commit only moves functions around -- there is no renaming and cleanup performed. Both will come later.
11 years ago
+ arrays.map(
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
bc.slice(ip + baseLength, ip + baseLength + paramsLength),
Inline functions extracted just because of JSHint Rather than extracting functions just because JSHint complained about defining functions inside a loop, let's inline then and silence the warning.
11 years ago
function(p) { return stack.index(p); }
Add whitespace to generated action calls Avoids implicit array to string conversion.
11 years ago
).join(', ')
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
+ ')';
Refine error handling further Before this commit, the |expected| and |error| functions didn't halt the parsing immediately, but triggered a regular match failure. After they were called, the parser could backtrack, try another branches, and only if no other branch succeeded, it triggered an exception with information possibly based on parameters passed to the |expected| or |error| function (this depended on positions where failures in other branches have occurred). While nice in theory, this solution didn't work well in practice. There were at least two problems: 1. Action expression could have easily triggered a match failure later in the input than the action itself. This resulted in the action-triggered failure to be shadowed by the expression-triggered one. Consider the following example: integer = digits:[0-9]+ { var result = parseInt(digits.join(""), 10); if (result % 2 === 0) { error("The number must be an odd integer."); return; } return result; } Given input "2", the |[0-9]+| expression would record a match failure at position 1 (an unsuccessful attempt to parse yet another digit after "2"). However, a failure triggered by the |error| call would occur at position 0. This problem could have been solved by silencing match failures in action expressions, but that would lead to severe performance problems (yes, I tried and measured). Other possible solutions are hacks which I didn't want to introduce into PEG.js. 2. Triggering a match failure in action code could have lead to unexpected backtracking. Consider the following example: class = "[" (charRange / char)* "]" charRange = begin:char "-" end:char { if (begin.data.charCodeAt(0) > end.data.charCodeAt(0)) { error("Invalid character range: " + begin + "-" + end + "."); } // ... } char = [a-zA-Z0-9_\-] Given input "[b-a]", the |charRange| rule would fail, but the parser would try the |char| rule and succeed repeatedly, resulting in "b-a" being parsed as a sequence of three |char|'s, which it is not. This problem could have been solved by using negative predicates, but that would complicate the grammar and still wouldn't get rid of unintuitive behavior. Given these problems I decided to change the semantics of the |expected| and |error| functions. They don't interact with regular match failure mechanism anymore, but they cause and immediate parse failure by throwing an exception. I think this is more intuitive behavior with less harmful side effects. The disadvantage of the new approach is that one can't backtrack from an action-triggered error. I don't see this as a big deal as I think this will be rarely needed and one can always use a semantic predicate as a workaround. Speed impact ------------ Before: 993.84 kB/s After: 998.05 kB/s Difference: 0.42% Size impact ----------- Before: 1019968 b After: 975434 b Difference: -4.37% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
stack.pop(bc[ip + 2]);
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
parts.push(stack.push(value));
ip += baseLength + paramsLength;
}
while (ip < end) {
switch (bc[ip]) {
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.PUSH: // PUSH c
Implement additional PUSH_* bytecode instructions Implement the following bytecode instructions: * PUSH_UNDEFINED * PUSH_NULL * PUSH_FAILED * PUSH_EMPTY_ARRAY These instructions push simple JavaSccript values to the stack directly, without going through constants. This makes the bytecode slightly shorter and the bytecode generator somewhat simpler. Also note that PUSH_EMPTY_ARRAY allows us to avoid a hack which protects the [] constant from modification.
11 years ago
parts.push(stack.push(c(bc[ip + 1])));
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
ip += 2;
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.PUSH_CURR_POS: // PUSH_CURR_POS
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
parts.push(stack.push('peg$currPos'));
ip++;
break;
Implement additional PUSH_* bytecode instructions Implement the following bytecode instructions: * PUSH_UNDEFINED * PUSH_NULL * PUSH_FAILED * PUSH_EMPTY_ARRAY These instructions push simple JavaSccript values to the stack directly, without going through constants. This makes the bytecode slightly shorter and the bytecode generator somewhat simpler. Also note that PUSH_EMPTY_ARRAY allows us to avoid a hack which protects the [] constant from modification.
11 years ago
case op.PUSH_UNDEFINED: // PUSH_UNDEFINED
parts.push(stack.push('void 0'));
ip++;
break;
case op.PUSH_NULL: // PUSH_NULL
parts.push(stack.push('null'));
ip++;
break;
case op.PUSH_FAILED: // PUSH_FAILED
parts.push(stack.push('peg$FAILED'));
ip++;
break;
case op.PUSH_EMPTY_ARRAY: // PUSH_EMPTY_ARRAY
parts.push(stack.push('[]'));
ip++;
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.POP: // POP
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
stack.pop();
ip++;
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.POP_CURR_POS: // POP_CURR_POS
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
parts.push('peg$currPos = ' + stack.pop() + ';');
ip++;
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.POP_N: // POP_N n
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
stack.pop(bc[ip + 1]);
ip += 2;
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.NIP: // NIP
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
value = stack.pop();
stack.pop();
parts.push(stack.push(value));
ip++;
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.APPEND: // APPEND
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
value = stack.pop();
parts.push(stack.top() + '.push(' + value + ');');
ip++;
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.WRAP: // WRAP n
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
parts.push(
stack.push('[' + stack.pop(bc[ip + 1]).join(', ') + ']')
);
ip += 2;
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.TEXT: // TEXT
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
parts.push(
Improve semantics of the TEXT bytecode instruction The TEXT instruction now replaces position at the top of the stack with the input from that position until the current position. This is simpler and cleaner semantics than the previous one, where TEXT also popped an additional value from the stack and kept the position there.
11 years ago
stack.push('input.substring(' + stack.pop() + ', peg$currPos)')
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
);
ip++;
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.IF: // IF t, f
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
compileCondition(stack.top(), 0);
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.IF_ERROR: // IF_ERROR t, f
Error handling: Use a special value (not |null|) to indicate failure Using a special value to indicate match failure instead of |null| allows actions to return |null| as a regular value. This simplifies e.g. the JSON parser. Note the special value is internal and intentionally undocumented. This means that there is currently no official way how to trigger a match failure from an action. This is a temporary state which will be fixed soon. The negative performance impact (see below) is probably caused by changing lot of comparisons against |null| (which likely check the value against a fixed constant representing |null| in the interpreter) to comparisons against the special value (which likely check the value against another value in the interpreter). Implements part of #198. Speed impact ------------ Before: 1146.82 kB/s After: 1031.25 kB/s Difference: -10.08% Size impact ----------- Before: 950817 b After: 973269 b Difference: 2.36% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
compileCondition(stack.top() + ' === peg$FAILED', 0);
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.IF_NOT_ERROR: // IF_NOT_ERROR t, f
Error handling: Use a special value (not |null|) to indicate failure Using a special value to indicate match failure instead of |null| allows actions to return |null| as a regular value. This simplifies e.g. the JSON parser. Note the special value is internal and intentionally undocumented. This means that there is currently no official way how to trigger a match failure from an action. This is a temporary state which will be fixed soon. The negative performance impact (see below) is probably caused by changing lot of comparisons against |null| (which likely check the value against a fixed constant representing |null| in the interpreter) to comparisons against the special value (which likely check the value against another value in the interpreter). Implements part of #198. Speed impact ------------ Before: 1146.82 kB/s After: 1031.25 kB/s Difference: -10.08% Size impact ----------- Before: 950817 b After: 973269 b Difference: 2.36% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
compileCondition(stack.top() + ' !== peg$FAILED', 0);
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.WHILE_NOT_ERROR: // WHILE_NOT_ERROR b
Error handling: Use a special value (not |null|) to indicate failure Using a special value to indicate match failure instead of |null| allows actions to return |null| as a regular value. This simplifies e.g. the JSON parser. Note the special value is internal and intentionally undocumented. This means that there is currently no official way how to trigger a match failure from an action. This is a temporary state which will be fixed soon. The negative performance impact (see below) is probably caused by changing lot of comparisons against |null| (which likely check the value against a fixed constant representing |null| in the interpreter) to comparisons against the special value (which likely check the value against another value in the interpreter). Implements part of #198. Speed impact ------------ Before: 1146.82 kB/s After: 1031.25 kB/s Difference: -10.08% Size impact ----------- Before: 950817 b After: 973269 b Difference: 2.36% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
compileLoop(stack.top() + ' !== peg$FAILED', 0);
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.MATCH_ANY: // MATCH_ANY a, f, ...
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
compileCondition('input.length > peg$currPos', 0);
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.MATCH_STRING: // MATCH_STRING s, a, f, ...
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
compileCondition(
eval(ast.consts[bc[ip + 1]]).length > 1
? 'input.substr(peg$currPos, '
+ eval(ast.consts[bc[ip + 1]]).length
+ ') === '
+ c(bc[ip + 1])
: 'input.charCodeAt(peg$currPos) === '
+ eval(ast.consts[bc[ip + 1]]).charCodeAt(0),
1
);
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.MATCH_STRING_IC: // MATCH_STRING_IC s, a, f, ...
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
compileCondition(
'input.substr(peg$currPos, '
Fix matching of case-instensitive literals Code that calculated which part of the input to match against a literal was wrong in case of case-insensitive literals when generating speed-optimized parsers. As a result, matching of case-insensitive literals worked only at the end of the input (where too big length passed to the |substr| method didn't matter). Fixes GH-153.
12 years ago
+ eval(ast.consts[bc[ip + 1]]).length
Fix indentation
12 years ago
+ ').toLowerCase() === '
+ c(bc[ip + 1]),
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
1
);
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.MATCH_REGEXP: // MATCH_REGEXP r, a, f, ...
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
compileCondition(
c(bc[ip + 1]) + '.test(input.charAt(peg$currPos))',
1
);
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.ACCEPT_N: // ACCEPT_N n
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
parts.push(stack.push(
bc[ip + 1] > 1
? 'input.substr(peg$currPos, ' + bc[ip + 1] + ')'
: 'input.charAt(peg$currPos)'
));
parts.push(
bc[ip + 1] > 1
? 'peg$currPos += ' + bc[ip + 1] + ';'
: 'peg$currPos++;'
);
ip += 2;
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.ACCEPT_STRING: // ACCEPT_STRING s
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
parts.push(stack.push(c(bc[ip + 1])));
parts.push(
eval(ast.consts[bc[ip + 1]]).length > 1
? 'peg$currPos += ' + eval(ast.consts[bc[ip + 1]]).length + ';'
: 'peg$currPos++;'
);
ip += 2;
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.FAIL: // FAIL e
Error handling: Use a special value (not |null|) to indicate failure Using a special value to indicate match failure instead of |null| allows actions to return |null| as a regular value. This simplifies e.g. the JSON parser. Note the special value is internal and intentionally undocumented. This means that there is currently no official way how to trigger a match failure from an action. This is a temporary state which will be fixed soon. The negative performance impact (see below) is probably caused by changing lot of comparisons against |null| (which likely check the value against a fixed constant representing |null| in the interpreter) to comparisons against the special value (which likely check the value against another value in the interpreter). Implements part of #198. Speed impact ------------ Before: 1146.82 kB/s After: 1031.25 kB/s Difference: -10.08% Size impact ----------- Before: 950817 b After: 973269 b Difference: 2.36% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
parts.push(stack.push('peg$FAILED'));
Refine error handling further Before this commit, the |expected| and |error| functions didn't halt the parsing immediately, but triggered a regular match failure. After they were called, the parser could backtrack, try another branches, and only if no other branch succeeded, it triggered an exception with information possibly based on parameters passed to the |expected| or |error| function (this depended on positions where failures in other branches have occurred). While nice in theory, this solution didn't work well in practice. There were at least two problems: 1. Action expression could have easily triggered a match failure later in the input than the action itself. This resulted in the action-triggered failure to be shadowed by the expression-triggered one. Consider the following example: integer = digits:[0-9]+ { var result = parseInt(digits.join(""), 10); if (result % 2 === 0) { error("The number must be an odd integer."); return; } return result; } Given input "2", the |[0-9]+| expression would record a match failure at position 1 (an unsuccessful attempt to parse yet another digit after "2"). However, a failure triggered by the |error| call would occur at position 0. This problem could have been solved by silencing match failures in action expressions, but that would lead to severe performance problems (yes, I tried and measured). Other possible solutions are hacks which I didn't want to introduce into PEG.js. 2. Triggering a match failure in action code could have lead to unexpected backtracking. Consider the following example: class = "[" (charRange / char)* "]" charRange = begin:char "-" end:char { if (begin.data.charCodeAt(0) > end.data.charCodeAt(0)) { error("Invalid character range: " + begin + "-" + end + "."); } // ... } char = [a-zA-Z0-9_\-] Given input "[b-a]", the |charRange| rule would fail, but the parser would try the |char| rule and succeed repeatedly, resulting in "b-a" being parsed as a sequence of three |char|'s, which it is not. This problem could have been solved by using negative predicates, but that would complicate the grammar and still wouldn't get rid of unintuitive behavior. Given these problems I decided to change the semantics of the |expected| and |error| functions. They don't interact with regular match failure mechanism anymore, but they cause and immediate parse failure by throwing an exception. I think this is more intuitive behavior with less harmful side effects. The disadvantage of the new approach is that one can't backtrack from an action-triggered error. I don't see this as a big deal as I think this will be rarely needed and one can always use a semantic predicate as a workaround. Speed impact ------------ Before: 993.84 kB/s After: 998.05 kB/s Difference: 0.42% Size impact ----------- Before: 1019968 b After: 975434 b Difference: -4.37% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
parts.push('if (peg$silentFails === 0) { peg$fail(' + c(bc[ip + 1]) + '); }');
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
ip += 2;
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.REPORT_SAVED_POS: // REPORT_SAVED_POS p
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
parts.push('peg$reportedPos = ' + stack.index(bc[ip + 1]) + ';');
ip += 2;
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.REPORT_CURR_POS: // REPORT_CURR_POS
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
parts.push('peg$reportedPos = peg$currPos;');
ip++;
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.CALL: // CALL f, n, pc, p1, p2, ..., pN
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
compileCall();
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.RULE: // RULE r
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
parts.push(stack.push("peg$parse" + ast.rules[bc[ip + 1]].name + "()"));
ip += 2;
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.SILENT_FAILS_ON: // SILENT_FAILS_ON
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
parts.push('peg$silentFails++;');
ip++;
break;
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
case op.SILENT_FAILS_OFF: // SILENT_FAILS_OFF
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
parts.push('peg$silentFails--;');
ip++;
break;
default:
throw new Error("Invalid opcode: " + bc[ip] + ".");
}
}
return parts.join('\n');
}
code = compile(rule.bytecode);
parts.push([
'function peg$parse' + rule.name + '() {',
Utility functions cleanup: Split lib/utils.js Split lib/utils.js into multiple files. Some of the functions were generic, these were moved into files in lib/utils. Other funtions were specific for the compiler, these were moved to files in lib/compiler. This commit only moves functions around -- there is no renaming and cleanup performed. Both will come later.
11 years ago
' var ' + arrays.map(arrays.range(0, stack.maxSp + 1), s).join(', ') + ';',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
''
].join('\n'));
if (options.cache) {
parts.push(indent2(
Utility functions cleanup: Cleanup lib/compiler/asts.js
11 years ago
generateCacheHeader(asts.indexOfRule(ast, rule.name))
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
));
}
parts.push(indent2(code));
if (options.cache) {
Use the |s| function instead of hardcoded |s0| value Based on a patch by @fresheneesz: https://github.com/dmajda/pegjs/pull/148
12 years ago
parts.push(indent2(generateCacheFooter(s(0))));
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
}
parts.push([
'',
Use the |s| function instead of hardcoded |s0| value Based on a patch by @fresheneesz: https://github.com/dmajda/pegjs/pull/148
12 years ago
' return ' + s(0) + ';',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
'}'
].join('\n'));
return parts.join('\n');
}
var parts = [],
startRuleIndices, startRuleIndex,
startRuleFunctions, startRuleFunction;
parts.push([
'(function() {',
' /*',
Update version to 0.8.0
11 years ago
' * Generated by PEG.js 0.8.0.',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' *',
' * http://pegjs.majda.cz/',
' */',
'',
s/subclass/peg$subclass/ The |subclass| function is not intended to be used by user code.
12 years ago
' function peg$subclass(child, parent) {',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' function ctor() { this.constructor = child; }',
' ctor.prototype = parent.prototype;',
' child.prototype = new ctor();',
' }',
'',
Mark |parse| and |SyntaxError| as internal identifiers The |parse| function and the |SyntaxError| exception were meant as internal, so let's mark them as such.
11 years ago
' function peg$SyntaxError(message, expected, found, offset, line, column) {',
Error handling: Build error message out of |SyntaxError|'s constructor It will be possible to create errors with user-supplied messages soon. The |SyntaxError| class needs to be ready for that. Implements part of #198.
11 years ago
' this.message = message;',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' this.expected = expected;',
' this.found = found;',
' this.offset = offset;',
' this.line = line;',
' this.column = column;',
'',
' this.name = "SyntaxError";',
' }',
'',
Mark |parse| and |SyntaxError| as internal identifiers The |parse| function and the |SyntaxError| exception were meant as internal, so let's mark them as such.
11 years ago
' peg$subclass(peg$SyntaxError, Error);',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
'',
Mark |parse| and |SyntaxError| as internal identifiers The |parse| function and the |SyntaxError| exception were meant as internal, so let's mark them as such.
11 years ago
' function peg$parse(input) {',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' var options = arguments.length > 1 ? arguments[1] : {},',
Expose the parser object in action/predicate code The action/predicate code didn't have access to the parser object. This was mostly a side effect actions/predicates being implemented as nested functions, in which |this| is a reference to the global object (an ugly JavaScript quirk). The initializer, being implemented differently, had access to the parser object via |this|, but this was not documented. Because having access to the parser object can be useful, this commits introduces a new |parser| variable which holds a reference to it, is visible in action/predicate/initializer code, and is properly documented. See also: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/pegjs/Na7YWnz6Bmg
11 years ago
' parser = this,',
Error handling: Use a special value (not |null|) to indicate failure Using a special value to indicate match failure instead of |null| allows actions to return |null| as a regular value. This simplifies e.g. the JSON parser. Note the special value is internal and intentionally undocumented. This means that there is currently no official way how to trigger a match failure from an action. This is a temporary state which will be fixed soon. The negative performance impact (see below) is probably caused by changing lot of comparisons against |null| (which likely check the value against a fixed constant representing |null| in the interpreter) to comparisons against the special value (which likely check the value against another value in the interpreter). Implements part of #198. Speed impact ------------ Before: 1146.82 kB/s After: 1031.25 kB/s Difference: -10.08% Size impact ----------- Before: 950817 b After: 973269 b Difference: 2.36% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
'',
' peg$FAILED = {},',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
''
].join('\n'));
if (options.optimize === "size") {
startRuleIndices = '{ '
Utility functions cleanup: Split lib/utils.js Split lib/utils.js into multiple files. Some of the functions were generic, these were moved into files in lib/utils. Other funtions were specific for the compiler, these were moved to files in lib/compiler. This commit only moves functions around -- there is no renaming and cleanup performed. Both will come later.
11 years ago
+ arrays.map(
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
options.allowedStartRules,
Utility functions cleanup: Cleanup lib/compiler/asts.js
11 years ago
function(r) { return r + ': ' + asts.indexOfRule(ast, r); }
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
).join(', ')
+ ' }';
Utility functions cleanup: Cleanup lib/compiler/asts.js
11 years ago
startRuleIndex = asts.indexOfRule(ast, options.allowedStartRules[0]);
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
parts.push([
' peg$startRuleIndices = ' + startRuleIndices + ',',
' peg$startRuleIndex = ' + startRuleIndex + ','
].join('\n'));
} else {
startRuleFunctions = '{ '
Utility functions cleanup: Split lib/utils.js Split lib/utils.js into multiple files. Some of the functions were generic, these were moved into files in lib/utils. Other funtions were specific for the compiler, these were moved to files in lib/compiler. This commit only moves functions around -- there is no renaming and cleanup performed. Both will come later.
11 years ago
+ arrays.map(
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
options.allowedStartRules,
function(r) { return r + ': peg$parse' + r; }
).join(', ')
+ ' }';
startRuleFunction = 'peg$parse' + options.allowedStartRules[0];
parts.push([
' peg$startRuleFunctions = ' + startRuleFunctions + ',',
' peg$startRuleFunction = ' + startRuleFunction + ','
].join('\n'));
}
parts.push('');
parts.push(indent8(generateTables()));
parts.push([
'',
' peg$currPos = 0,',
' peg$reportedPos = 0,',
' peg$cachedPos = 0,',
' peg$cachedPosDetails = { line: 1, column: 1, seenCR: false },',
' peg$maxFailPos = 0,',
' peg$maxFailExpected = [],',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' peg$silentFails = 0,', // 0 = report failures, > 0 = silence failures
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
''
].join('\n'));
if (options.cache) {
parts.push(' peg$cache = {},');
}
parts.push([
' peg$result;',
''
].join('\n'));
if (options.optimize === "size") {
parts.push([
' if ("startRule" in options) {',
' if (!(options.startRule in peg$startRuleIndices)) {',
' throw new Error("Can\'t start parsing from rule \\"" + options.startRule + "\\".");',
' }',
'',
' peg$startRuleIndex = peg$startRuleIndices[options.startRule];',
' }'
].join('\n'));
} else {
parts.push([
' if ("startRule" in options) {',
' if (!(options.startRule in peg$startRuleFunctions)) {',
' throw new Error("Can\'t start parsing from rule \\"" + options.startRule + "\\".");',
' }',
'',
' peg$startRuleFunction = peg$startRuleFunctions[options.startRule];',
' }'
].join('\n'));
}
parts.push([
'',
' function text() {',
' return input.substring(peg$reportedPos, peg$currPos);',
' }',
'',
' function offset() {',
' return peg$reportedPos;',
' }',
'',
' function line() {',
' return peg$computePosDetails(peg$reportedPos).line;',
' }',
'',
' function column() {',
' return peg$computePosDetails(peg$reportedPos).column;',
' }',
'',
Error handling: Implement the |expected| function The |expected| function allows users to report regular match failures inside actions. If the |expected| function is called, and the reported match failure turns out to be the cause of a parse error, the error message reported by the parser will be in the usual "Expected ... but found ..." format with the description specified in the |expected| call used as part of the message. Implements part of #198. Speed impact ------------ Before: 1146.82 kB/s After: 1031.25 kB/s Difference: -10.08% Size impact ----------- Before: 950817 b After: 973269 b Difference: 2.36% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
' function expected(description) {',
Refine error handling further Before this commit, the |expected| and |error| functions didn't halt the parsing immediately, but triggered a regular match failure. After they were called, the parser could backtrack, try another branches, and only if no other branch succeeded, it triggered an exception with information possibly based on parameters passed to the |expected| or |error| function (this depended on positions where failures in other branches have occurred). While nice in theory, this solution didn't work well in practice. There were at least two problems: 1. Action expression could have easily triggered a match failure later in the input than the action itself. This resulted in the action-triggered failure to be shadowed by the expression-triggered one. Consider the following example: integer = digits:[0-9]+ { var result = parseInt(digits.join(""), 10); if (result % 2 === 0) { error("The number must be an odd integer."); return; } return result; } Given input "2", the |[0-9]+| expression would record a match failure at position 1 (an unsuccessful attempt to parse yet another digit after "2"). However, a failure triggered by the |error| call would occur at position 0. This problem could have been solved by silencing match failures in action expressions, but that would lead to severe performance problems (yes, I tried and measured). Other possible solutions are hacks which I didn't want to introduce into PEG.js. 2. Triggering a match failure in action code could have lead to unexpected backtracking. Consider the following example: class = "[" (charRange / char)* "]" charRange = begin:char "-" end:char { if (begin.data.charCodeAt(0) > end.data.charCodeAt(0)) { error("Invalid character range: " + begin + "-" + end + "."); } // ... } char = [a-zA-Z0-9_\-] Given input "[b-a]", the |charRange| rule would fail, but the parser would try the |char| rule and succeed repeatedly, resulting in "b-a" being parsed as a sequence of three |char|'s, which it is not. This problem could have been solved by using negative predicates, but that would complicate the grammar and still wouldn't get rid of unintuitive behavior. Given these problems I decided to change the semantics of the |expected| and |error| functions. They don't interact with regular match failure mechanism anymore, but they cause and immediate parse failure by throwing an exception. I think this is more intuitive behavior with less harmful side effects. The disadvantage of the new approach is that one can't backtrack from an action-triggered error. I don't see this as a big deal as I think this will be rarely needed and one can always use a semantic predicate as a workaround. Speed impact ------------ Before: 993.84 kB/s After: 998.05 kB/s Difference: 0.42% Size impact ----------- Before: 1019968 b After: 975434 b Difference: -4.37% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
' throw peg$buildException(',
' null,',
' [{ type: "other", description: description }],',
' peg$reportedPos',
' );',
Error handling: Implement the |expected| function The |expected| function allows users to report regular match failures inside actions. If the |expected| function is called, and the reported match failure turns out to be the cause of a parse error, the error message reported by the parser will be in the usual "Expected ... but found ..." format with the description specified in the |expected| call used as part of the message. Implements part of #198. Speed impact ------------ Before: 1146.82 kB/s After: 1031.25 kB/s Difference: -10.08% Size impact ----------- Before: 950817 b After: 973269 b Difference: 2.36% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
' }',
'',
Error handling: Implement the |error| function The |error| function allows users to report custom match failures inside actions. If the |error| function is called, and the reported match failure turns out to be the cause of a parse error, the error message reported by the parser will be exactly the one specified in the |error| call. Implements part of #198. Speed impact ------------ Before: 999.83 kB/s After: 1000.84 kB/s Difference: 0.10% Size impact ----------- Before: 1017212 b After: 1019968 b Difference: 0.27% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
' function error(message) {',
Refine error handling further Before this commit, the |expected| and |error| functions didn't halt the parsing immediately, but triggered a regular match failure. After they were called, the parser could backtrack, try another branches, and only if no other branch succeeded, it triggered an exception with information possibly based on parameters passed to the |expected| or |error| function (this depended on positions where failures in other branches have occurred). While nice in theory, this solution didn't work well in practice. There were at least two problems: 1. Action expression could have easily triggered a match failure later in the input than the action itself. This resulted in the action-triggered failure to be shadowed by the expression-triggered one. Consider the following example: integer = digits:[0-9]+ { var result = parseInt(digits.join(""), 10); if (result % 2 === 0) { error("The number must be an odd integer."); return; } return result; } Given input "2", the |[0-9]+| expression would record a match failure at position 1 (an unsuccessful attempt to parse yet another digit after "2"). However, a failure triggered by the |error| call would occur at position 0. This problem could have been solved by silencing match failures in action expressions, but that would lead to severe performance problems (yes, I tried and measured). Other possible solutions are hacks which I didn't want to introduce into PEG.js. 2. Triggering a match failure in action code could have lead to unexpected backtracking. Consider the following example: class = "[" (charRange / char)* "]" charRange = begin:char "-" end:char { if (begin.data.charCodeAt(0) > end.data.charCodeAt(0)) { error("Invalid character range: " + begin + "-" + end + "."); } // ... } char = [a-zA-Z0-9_\-] Given input "[b-a]", the |charRange| rule would fail, but the parser would try the |char| rule and succeed repeatedly, resulting in "b-a" being parsed as a sequence of three |char|'s, which it is not. This problem could have been solved by using negative predicates, but that would complicate the grammar and still wouldn't get rid of unintuitive behavior. Given these problems I decided to change the semantics of the |expected| and |error| functions. They don't interact with regular match failure mechanism anymore, but they cause and immediate parse failure by throwing an exception. I think this is more intuitive behavior with less harmful side effects. The disadvantage of the new approach is that one can't backtrack from an action-triggered error. I don't see this as a big deal as I think this will be rarely needed and one can always use a semantic predicate as a workaround. Speed impact ------------ Before: 993.84 kB/s After: 998.05 kB/s Difference: 0.42% Size impact ----------- Before: 1019968 b After: 975434 b Difference: -4.37% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
' throw peg$buildException(message, null, peg$reportedPos);',
Error handling: Implement the |error| function The |error| function allows users to report custom match failures inside actions. If the |error| function is called, and the reported match failure turns out to be the cause of a parse error, the error message reported by the parser will be exactly the one specified in the |error| call. Implements part of #198. Speed impact ------------ Before: 999.83 kB/s After: 1000.84 kB/s Difference: 0.10% Size impact ----------- Before: 1017212 b After: 1019968 b Difference: 0.27% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
' }',
'',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' function peg$computePosDetails(pos) {',
Fix buggy position computation Fixes GH-152.
12 years ago
' function advance(details, startPos, endPos) {',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' var p, ch;',
'',
Fix buggy position computation Fixes GH-152.
12 years ago
' for (p = startPos; p < endPos; p++) {',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' ch = input.charAt(p);',
' if (ch === "\\n") {',
' if (!details.seenCR) { details.line++; }',
' details.column = 1;',
' details.seenCR = false;',
' } else if (ch === "\\r" || ch === "\\u2028" || ch === "\\u2029") {',
' details.line++;',
' details.column = 1;',
' details.seenCR = true;',
' } else {',
' details.column++;',
' details.seenCR = false;',
' }',
' }',
' }',
'',
' if (peg$cachedPos !== pos) {',
' if (peg$cachedPos > pos) {',
' peg$cachedPos = 0;',
' peg$cachedPosDetails = { line: 1, column: 1, seenCR: false };',
' }',
Fix buggy position computation Fixes GH-152.
12 years ago
' advance(peg$cachedPosDetails, peg$cachedPos, pos);',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' peg$cachedPos = pos;',
' }',
'',
' return peg$cachedPosDetails;',
' }',
'',
Refine error handling further Before this commit, the |expected| and |error| functions didn't halt the parsing immediately, but triggered a regular match failure. After they were called, the parser could backtrack, try another branches, and only if no other branch succeeded, it triggered an exception with information possibly based on parameters passed to the |expected| or |error| function (this depended on positions where failures in other branches have occurred). While nice in theory, this solution didn't work well in practice. There were at least two problems: 1. Action expression could have easily triggered a match failure later in the input than the action itself. This resulted in the action-triggered failure to be shadowed by the expression-triggered one. Consider the following example: integer = digits:[0-9]+ { var result = parseInt(digits.join(""), 10); if (result % 2 === 0) { error("The number must be an odd integer."); return; } return result; } Given input "2", the |[0-9]+| expression would record a match failure at position 1 (an unsuccessful attempt to parse yet another digit after "2"). However, a failure triggered by the |error| call would occur at position 0. This problem could have been solved by silencing match failures in action expressions, but that would lead to severe performance problems (yes, I tried and measured). Other possible solutions are hacks which I didn't want to introduce into PEG.js. 2. Triggering a match failure in action code could have lead to unexpected backtracking. Consider the following example: class = "[" (charRange / char)* "]" charRange = begin:char "-" end:char { if (begin.data.charCodeAt(0) > end.data.charCodeAt(0)) { error("Invalid character range: " + begin + "-" + end + "."); } // ... } char = [a-zA-Z0-9_\-] Given input "[b-a]", the |charRange| rule would fail, but the parser would try the |char| rule and succeed repeatedly, resulting in "b-a" being parsed as a sequence of three |char|'s, which it is not. This problem could have been solved by using negative predicates, but that would complicate the grammar and still wouldn't get rid of unintuitive behavior. Given these problems I decided to change the semantics of the |expected| and |error| functions. They don't interact with regular match failure mechanism anymore, but they cause and immediate parse failure by throwing an exception. I think this is more intuitive behavior with less harmful side effects. The disadvantage of the new approach is that one can't backtrack from an action-triggered error. I don't see this as a big deal as I think this will be rarely needed and one can always use a semantic predicate as a workaround. Speed impact ------------ Before: 993.84 kB/s After: 998.05 kB/s Difference: 0.42% Size impact ----------- Before: 1019968 b After: 975434 b Difference: -4.37% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
' function peg$fail(expected) {',
' if (peg$currPos < peg$maxFailPos) { return; }',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
'',
Refine error handling further Before this commit, the |expected| and |error| functions didn't halt the parsing immediately, but triggered a regular match failure. After they were called, the parser could backtrack, try another branches, and only if no other branch succeeded, it triggered an exception with information possibly based on parameters passed to the |expected| or |error| function (this depended on positions where failures in other branches have occurred). While nice in theory, this solution didn't work well in practice. There were at least two problems: 1. Action expression could have easily triggered a match failure later in the input than the action itself. This resulted in the action-triggered failure to be shadowed by the expression-triggered one. Consider the following example: integer = digits:[0-9]+ { var result = parseInt(digits.join(""), 10); if (result % 2 === 0) { error("The number must be an odd integer."); return; } return result; } Given input "2", the |[0-9]+| expression would record a match failure at position 1 (an unsuccessful attempt to parse yet another digit after "2"). However, a failure triggered by the |error| call would occur at position 0. This problem could have been solved by silencing match failures in action expressions, but that would lead to severe performance problems (yes, I tried and measured). Other possible solutions are hacks which I didn't want to introduce into PEG.js. 2. Triggering a match failure in action code could have lead to unexpected backtracking. Consider the following example: class = "[" (charRange / char)* "]" charRange = begin:char "-" end:char { if (begin.data.charCodeAt(0) > end.data.charCodeAt(0)) { error("Invalid character range: " + begin + "-" + end + "."); } // ... } char = [a-zA-Z0-9_\-] Given input "[b-a]", the |charRange| rule would fail, but the parser would try the |char| rule and succeed repeatedly, resulting in "b-a" being parsed as a sequence of three |char|'s, which it is not. This problem could have been solved by using negative predicates, but that would complicate the grammar and still wouldn't get rid of unintuitive behavior. Given these problems I decided to change the semantics of the |expected| and |error| functions. They don't interact with regular match failure mechanism anymore, but they cause and immediate parse failure by throwing an exception. I think this is more intuitive behavior with less harmful side effects. The disadvantage of the new approach is that one can't backtrack from an action-triggered error. I don't see this as a big deal as I think this will be rarely needed and one can always use a semantic predicate as a workaround. Speed impact ------------ Before: 993.84 kB/s After: 998.05 kB/s Difference: 0.42% Size impact ----------- Before: 1019968 b After: 975434 b Difference: -4.37% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
' if (peg$currPos > peg$maxFailPos) {',
' peg$maxFailPos = peg$currPos;',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' peg$maxFailExpected = [];',
' }',
'',
' peg$maxFailExpected.push(expected);',
' }',
'',
Refine error handling further Before this commit, the |expected| and |error| functions didn't halt the parsing immediately, but triggered a regular match failure. After they were called, the parser could backtrack, try another branches, and only if no other branch succeeded, it triggered an exception with information possibly based on parameters passed to the |expected| or |error| function (this depended on positions where failures in other branches have occurred). While nice in theory, this solution didn't work well in practice. There were at least two problems: 1. Action expression could have easily triggered a match failure later in the input than the action itself. This resulted in the action-triggered failure to be shadowed by the expression-triggered one. Consider the following example: integer = digits:[0-9]+ { var result = parseInt(digits.join(""), 10); if (result % 2 === 0) { error("The number must be an odd integer."); return; } return result; } Given input "2", the |[0-9]+| expression would record a match failure at position 1 (an unsuccessful attempt to parse yet another digit after "2"). However, a failure triggered by the |error| call would occur at position 0. This problem could have been solved by silencing match failures in action expressions, but that would lead to severe performance problems (yes, I tried and measured). Other possible solutions are hacks which I didn't want to introduce into PEG.js. 2. Triggering a match failure in action code could have lead to unexpected backtracking. Consider the following example: class = "[" (charRange / char)* "]" charRange = begin:char "-" end:char { if (begin.data.charCodeAt(0) > end.data.charCodeAt(0)) { error("Invalid character range: " + begin + "-" + end + "."); } // ... } char = [a-zA-Z0-9_\-] Given input "[b-a]", the |charRange| rule would fail, but the parser would try the |char| rule and succeed repeatedly, resulting in "b-a" being parsed as a sequence of three |char|'s, which it is not. This problem could have been solved by using negative predicates, but that would complicate the grammar and still wouldn't get rid of unintuitive behavior. Given these problems I decided to change the semantics of the |expected| and |error| functions. They don't interact with regular match failure mechanism anymore, but they cause and immediate parse failure by throwing an exception. I think this is more intuitive behavior with less harmful side effects. The disadvantage of the new approach is that one can't backtrack from an action-triggered error. I don't see this as a big deal as I think this will be rarely needed and one can always use a semantic predicate as a workaround. Speed impact ------------ Before: 993.84 kB/s After: 998.05 kB/s Difference: 0.42% Size impact ----------- Before: 1019968 b After: 975434 b Difference: -4.37% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
' function peg$buildException(message, expected, pos) {',
Error handling: Extract exception building into its own function The exception-creating code will get somewhat hairy soon, so let's make sure them mess will be contained. Implements part of #198.
11 years ago
' function cleanupExpected(expected) {',
' var i = 1;',
'',
' expected.sort(function(a, b) {',
' if (a.description < b.description) {',
' return -1;',
' } else if (a.description > b.description) {',
' return 1;',
' } else {',
' return 0;',
' }',
' });',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
'',
Refine error handling further Before this commit, the |expected| and |error| functions didn't halt the parsing immediately, but triggered a regular match failure. After they were called, the parser could backtrack, try another branches, and only if no other branch succeeded, it triggered an exception with information possibly based on parameters passed to the |expected| or |error| function (this depended on positions where failures in other branches have occurred). While nice in theory, this solution didn't work well in practice. There were at least two problems: 1. Action expression could have easily triggered a match failure later in the input than the action itself. This resulted in the action-triggered failure to be shadowed by the expression-triggered one. Consider the following example: integer = digits:[0-9]+ { var result = parseInt(digits.join(""), 10); if (result % 2 === 0) { error("The number must be an odd integer."); return; } return result; } Given input "2", the |[0-9]+| expression would record a match failure at position 1 (an unsuccessful attempt to parse yet another digit after "2"). However, a failure triggered by the |error| call would occur at position 0. This problem could have been solved by silencing match failures in action expressions, but that would lead to severe performance problems (yes, I tried and measured). Other possible solutions are hacks which I didn't want to introduce into PEG.js. 2. Triggering a match failure in action code could have lead to unexpected backtracking. Consider the following example: class = "[" (charRange / char)* "]" charRange = begin:char "-" end:char { if (begin.data.charCodeAt(0) > end.data.charCodeAt(0)) { error("Invalid character range: " + begin + "-" + end + "."); } // ... } char = [a-zA-Z0-9_\-] Given input "[b-a]", the |charRange| rule would fail, but the parser would try the |char| rule and succeed repeatedly, resulting in "b-a" being parsed as a sequence of three |char|'s, which it is not. This problem could have been solved by using negative predicates, but that would complicate the grammar and still wouldn't get rid of unintuitive behavior. Given these problems I decided to change the semantics of the |expected| and |error| functions. They don't interact with regular match failure mechanism anymore, but they cause and immediate parse failure by throwing an exception. I think this is more intuitive behavior with less harmful side effects. The disadvantage of the new approach is that one can't backtrack from an action-triggered error. I don't see this as a big deal as I think this will be rarely needed and one can always use a semantic predicate as a workaround. Speed impact ------------ Before: 993.84 kB/s After: 998.05 kB/s Difference: 0.42% Size impact ----------- Before: 1019968 b After: 975434 b Difference: -4.37% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
/*
* This works because the bytecode generator guarantees that every
* expectation object exists only once, so it's enough to use |===| instead
* of deeper structural comparison.
*/
Error handling: Extract exception building into its own function The exception-creating code will get somewhat hairy soon, so let's make sure them mess will be contained. Implements part of #198.
11 years ago
' while (i < expected.length) {',
Refine error handling further Before this commit, the |expected| and |error| functions didn't halt the parsing immediately, but triggered a regular match failure. After they were called, the parser could backtrack, try another branches, and only if no other branch succeeded, it triggered an exception with information possibly based on parameters passed to the |expected| or |error| function (this depended on positions where failures in other branches have occurred). While nice in theory, this solution didn't work well in practice. There were at least two problems: 1. Action expression could have easily triggered a match failure later in the input than the action itself. This resulted in the action-triggered failure to be shadowed by the expression-triggered one. Consider the following example: integer = digits:[0-9]+ { var result = parseInt(digits.join(""), 10); if (result % 2 === 0) { error("The number must be an odd integer."); return; } return result; } Given input "2", the |[0-9]+| expression would record a match failure at position 1 (an unsuccessful attempt to parse yet another digit after "2"). However, a failure triggered by the |error| call would occur at position 0. This problem could have been solved by silencing match failures in action expressions, but that would lead to severe performance problems (yes, I tried and measured). Other possible solutions are hacks which I didn't want to introduce into PEG.js. 2. Triggering a match failure in action code could have lead to unexpected backtracking. Consider the following example: class = "[" (charRange / char)* "]" charRange = begin:char "-" end:char { if (begin.data.charCodeAt(0) > end.data.charCodeAt(0)) { error("Invalid character range: " + begin + "-" + end + "."); } // ... } char = [a-zA-Z0-9_\-] Given input "[b-a]", the |charRange| rule would fail, but the parser would try the |char| rule and succeed repeatedly, resulting in "b-a" being parsed as a sequence of three |char|'s, which it is not. This problem could have been solved by using negative predicates, but that would complicate the grammar and still wouldn't get rid of unintuitive behavior. Given these problems I decided to change the semantics of the |expected| and |error| functions. They don't interact with regular match failure mechanism anymore, but they cause and immediate parse failure by throwing an exception. I think this is more intuitive behavior with less harmful side effects. The disadvantage of the new approach is that one can't backtrack from an action-triggered error. I don't see this as a big deal as I think this will be rarely needed and one can always use a semantic predicate as a workaround. Speed impact ------------ Before: 993.84 kB/s After: 998.05 kB/s Difference: 0.42% Size impact ----------- Before: 1019968 b After: 975434 b Difference: -4.37% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
' if (expected[i - 1] === expected[i]) {',
Error handling: Extract exception building into its own function The exception-creating code will get somewhat hairy soon, so let's make sure them mess will be contained. Implements part of #198.
11 years ago
' expected.splice(i, 1);',
' } else {',
' i++;',
' }',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' }',
' }',
Error handling: Extract exception building into its own function The exception-creating code will get somewhat hairy soon, so let's make sure them mess will be contained. Implements part of #198.
11 years ago
'',
Error handling: Build error message out of |SyntaxError|'s constructor It will be possible to create errors with user-supplied messages soon. The |SyntaxError| class needs to be ready for that. Implements part of #198.
11 years ago
' function buildMessage(expected, found) {',
' function stringEscape(s) {',
' function hex(ch) { return ch.charCodeAt(0).toString(16).toUpperCase(); }',
'',
/*
* ECMA-262, 5th ed., 7.8.4: All characters may appear literally in a string
* literal except for the closing quote character, backslash, carriage
* return, line separator, paragraph separator, and line feed. Any character
* may appear in the form of an escape sequence.
*
* For portability, we also escape all control and non-ASCII characters.
* Note that "\0" and "\v" escape sequences are not used because JSHint does
* not like the first and IE the second.
*/
' return s',
Standardize on 3 spaces before // comments
11 years ago
' .replace(/\\\\/g, \'\\\\\\\\\')', // backslash
' .replace(/"/g, \'\\\\"\')', // closing double quote
' .replace(/\\x08/g, \'\\\\b\')', // backspace
' .replace(/\\t/g, \'\\\\t\')', // horizontal tab
' .replace(/\\n/g, \'\\\\n\')', // line feed
' .replace(/\\f/g, \'\\\\f\')', // form feed
' .replace(/\\r/g, \'\\\\r\')', // carriage return
Error handling: Build error message out of |SyntaxError|'s constructor It will be possible to create errors with user-supplied messages soon. The |SyntaxError| class needs to be ready for that. Implements part of #198.
11 years ago
' .replace(/[\\x00-\\x07\\x0B\\x0E\\x0F]/g, function(ch) { return \'\\\\x0\' + hex(ch); })',
' .replace(/[\\x10-\\x1F\\x80-\\xFF]/g, function(ch) { return \'\\\\x\' + hex(ch); })',
Fix a bug in |stringEscape| The |stringEscape| function both in lib/compiler/javascript.js and in generated parsers didn't escape characters in the U+0100..U+107F and U+1000..U+107F ranges.
11 years ago
' .replace(/[\\u0100-\\u0FFF]/g, function(ch) { return \'\\\\u0\' + hex(ch); })',
' .replace(/[\\u1000-\\uFFFF]/g, function(ch) { return \'\\\\u\' + hex(ch); });',
Error handling: Build error message out of |SyntaxError|'s constructor It will be possible to create errors with user-supplied messages soon. The |SyntaxError| class needs to be ready for that. Implements part of #198.
11 years ago
' }',
'',
Fix error messages in certain cases with trailing input In case the generated parser parsed successfully part of input and left some input unparsed (trailing input), the error message produced was sometimes wrong. The code worked correctly only if there were no match failures in the successfully parsed part (highly unlikely). This commit fixes things by explicitly triggering a match failure with the following expectation at the end of the successfully parsed part of the input: peg$fail({ type: "end", description: "end of input" }); This change also made it possible to simplify the |buildMessage| function, which can now ignore the case of no expectations. Fixes #119.
11 years ago
' var expectedDescs = new Array(expected.length),',
' expectedDesc, foundDesc, i;',
Error handling: Build error message out of |SyntaxError|'s constructor It will be possible to create errors with user-supplied messages soon. The |SyntaxError| class needs to be ready for that. Implements part of #198.
11 years ago
'',
Fix error messages in certain cases with trailing input In case the generated parser parsed successfully part of input and left some input unparsed (trailing input), the error message produced was sometimes wrong. The code worked correctly only if there were no match failures in the successfully parsed part (highly unlikely). This commit fixes things by explicitly triggering a match failure with the following expectation at the end of the successfully parsed part of the input: peg$fail({ type: "end", description: "end of input" }); This change also made it possible to simplify the |buildMessage| function, which can now ignore the case of no expectations. Fixes #119.
11 years ago
' for (i = 0; i < expected.length; i++) {',
' expectedDescs[i] = expected[i].description;',
' }',
Error handling: Build error message out of |SyntaxError|'s constructor It will be possible to create errors with user-supplied messages soon. The |SyntaxError| class needs to be ready for that. Implements part of #198.
11 years ago
'',
Fix error messages in certain cases with trailing input In case the generated parser parsed successfully part of input and left some input unparsed (trailing input), the error message produced was sometimes wrong. The code worked correctly only if there were no match failures in the successfully parsed part (highly unlikely). This commit fixes things by explicitly triggering a match failure with the following expectation at the end of the successfully parsed part of the input: peg$fail({ type: "end", description: "end of input" }); This change also made it possible to simplify the |buildMessage| function, which can now ignore the case of no expectations. Fixes #119.
11 years ago
' expectedDesc = expected.length > 1',
' ? expectedDescs.slice(0, -1).join(", ")',
Error handling: Build error message out of |SyntaxError|'s constructor It will be possible to create errors with user-supplied messages soon. The |SyntaxError| class needs to be ready for that. Implements part of #198.
11 years ago
' + " or "',
Fix error messages in certain cases with trailing input In case the generated parser parsed successfully part of input and left some input unparsed (trailing input), the error message produced was sometimes wrong. The code worked correctly only if there were no match failures in the successfully parsed part (highly unlikely). This commit fixes things by explicitly triggering a match failure with the following expectation at the end of the successfully parsed part of the input: peg$fail({ type: "end", description: "end of input" }); This change also made it possible to simplify the |buildMessage| function, which can now ignore the case of no expectations. Fixes #119.
11 years ago
' + expectedDescs[expected.length - 1]',
' : expectedDescs[0];',
Error handling: Build error message out of |SyntaxError|'s constructor It will be possible to create errors with user-supplied messages soon. The |SyntaxError| class needs to be ready for that. Implements part of #198.
11 years ago
'',
' foundDesc = found ? "\\"" + stringEscape(found) + "\\"" : "end of input";',
'',
' return "Expected " + expectedDesc + " but " + foundDesc + " found.";',
' }',
'',
Refine error handling further Before this commit, the |expected| and |error| functions didn't halt the parsing immediately, but triggered a regular match failure. After they were called, the parser could backtrack, try another branches, and only if no other branch succeeded, it triggered an exception with information possibly based on parameters passed to the |expected| or |error| function (this depended on positions where failures in other branches have occurred). While nice in theory, this solution didn't work well in practice. There were at least two problems: 1. Action expression could have easily triggered a match failure later in the input than the action itself. This resulted in the action-triggered failure to be shadowed by the expression-triggered one. Consider the following example: integer = digits:[0-9]+ { var result = parseInt(digits.join(""), 10); if (result % 2 === 0) { error("The number must be an odd integer."); return; } return result; } Given input "2", the |[0-9]+| expression would record a match failure at position 1 (an unsuccessful attempt to parse yet another digit after "2"). However, a failure triggered by the |error| call would occur at position 0. This problem could have been solved by silencing match failures in action expressions, but that would lead to severe performance problems (yes, I tried and measured). Other possible solutions are hacks which I didn't want to introduce into PEG.js. 2. Triggering a match failure in action code could have lead to unexpected backtracking. Consider the following example: class = "[" (charRange / char)* "]" charRange = begin:char "-" end:char { if (begin.data.charCodeAt(0) > end.data.charCodeAt(0)) { error("Invalid character range: " + begin + "-" + end + "."); } // ... } char = [a-zA-Z0-9_\-] Given input "[b-a]", the |charRange| rule would fail, but the parser would try the |char| rule and succeed repeatedly, resulting in "b-a" being parsed as a sequence of three |char|'s, which it is not. This problem could have been solved by using negative predicates, but that would complicate the grammar and still wouldn't get rid of unintuitive behavior. Given these problems I decided to change the semantics of the |expected| and |error| functions. They don't interact with regular match failure mechanism anymore, but they cause and immediate parse failure by throwing an exception. I think this is more intuitive behavior with less harmful side effects. The disadvantage of the new approach is that one can't backtrack from an action-triggered error. I don't see this as a big deal as I think this will be rarely needed and one can always use a semantic predicate as a workaround. Speed impact ------------ Before: 993.84 kB/s After: 998.05 kB/s Difference: 0.42% Size impact ----------- Before: 1019968 b After: 975434 b Difference: -4.37% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
' var posDetails = peg$computePosDetails(pos),',
' found = pos < input.length ? input.charAt(pos) : null;',
Error handling: Implement the |error| function The |error| function allows users to report custom match failures inside actions. If the |error| function is called, and the reported match failure turns out to be the cause of a parse error, the error message reported by the parser will be exactly the one specified in the |error| call. Implements part of #198. Speed impact ------------ Before: 999.83 kB/s After: 1000.84 kB/s Difference: 0.10% Size impact ----------- Before: 1017212 b After: 1019968 b Difference: 0.27% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
'',
' if (expected !== null) {',
' cleanupExpected(expected);',
' }',
Error handling: Extract exception building into its own function The exception-creating code will get somewhat hairy soon, so let's make sure them mess will be contained. Implements part of #198.
11 years ago
'',
Mark |parse| and |SyntaxError| as internal identifiers The |parse| function and the |SyntaxError| exception were meant as internal, so let's mark them as such.
11 years ago
' return new peg$SyntaxError(',
Refine error handling further Before this commit, the |expected| and |error| functions didn't halt the parsing immediately, but triggered a regular match failure. After they were called, the parser could backtrack, try another branches, and only if no other branch succeeded, it triggered an exception with information possibly based on parameters passed to the |expected| or |error| function (this depended on positions where failures in other branches have occurred). While nice in theory, this solution didn't work well in practice. There were at least two problems: 1. Action expression could have easily triggered a match failure later in the input than the action itself. This resulted in the action-triggered failure to be shadowed by the expression-triggered one. Consider the following example: integer = digits:[0-9]+ { var result = parseInt(digits.join(""), 10); if (result % 2 === 0) { error("The number must be an odd integer."); return; } return result; } Given input "2", the |[0-9]+| expression would record a match failure at position 1 (an unsuccessful attempt to parse yet another digit after "2"). However, a failure triggered by the |error| call would occur at position 0. This problem could have been solved by silencing match failures in action expressions, but that would lead to severe performance problems (yes, I tried and measured). Other possible solutions are hacks which I didn't want to introduce into PEG.js. 2. Triggering a match failure in action code could have lead to unexpected backtracking. Consider the following example: class = "[" (charRange / char)* "]" charRange = begin:char "-" end:char { if (begin.data.charCodeAt(0) > end.data.charCodeAt(0)) { error("Invalid character range: " + begin + "-" + end + "."); } // ... } char = [a-zA-Z0-9_\-] Given input "[b-a]", the |charRange| rule would fail, but the parser would try the |char| rule and succeed repeatedly, resulting in "b-a" being parsed as a sequence of three |char|'s, which it is not. This problem could have been solved by using negative predicates, but that would complicate the grammar and still wouldn't get rid of unintuitive behavior. Given these problems I decided to change the semantics of the |expected| and |error| functions. They don't interact with regular match failure mechanism anymore, but they cause and immediate parse failure by throwing an exception. I think this is more intuitive behavior with less harmful side effects. The disadvantage of the new approach is that one can't backtrack from an action-triggered error. I don't see this as a big deal as I think this will be rarely needed and one can always use a semantic predicate as a workaround. Speed impact ------------ Before: 993.84 kB/s After: 998.05 kB/s Difference: 0.42% Size impact ----------- Before: 1019968 b After: 975434 b Difference: -4.37% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
' message !== null ? message : buildMessage(expected, found),',
Error handling: Implement the |error| function The |error| function allows users to report custom match failures inside actions. If the |error| function is called, and the reported match failure turns out to be the cause of a parse error, the error message reported by the parser will be exactly the one specified in the |error| call. Implements part of #198. Speed impact ------------ Before: 999.83 kB/s After: 1000.84 kB/s Difference: 0.10% Size impact ----------- Before: 1017212 b After: 1019968 b Difference: 0.27% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
' expected,',
Error handling: Extract exception building into its own function The exception-creating code will get somewhat hairy soon, so let's make sure them mess will be contained. Implements part of #198.
11 years ago
' found,',
' pos,',
' posDetails.line,',
' posDetails.column',
' );',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' }',
''
].join('\n'));
if (options.optimize === "size") {
parts.push(indent4(generateInterpreter()));
parts.push('');
} else {
Utility functions cleanup: Split lib/utils.js Split lib/utils.js into multiple files. Some of the functions were generic, these were moved into files in lib/utils. Other funtions were specific for the compiler, these were moved to files in lib/compiler. This commit only moves functions around -- there is no renaming and cleanup performed. Both will come later.
11 years ago
arrays.each(ast.rules, function(rule) {
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
parts.push(indent4(generateRuleFunction(rule)));
parts.push('');
});
}
if (ast.initializer) {
Wrap initializer code in generated parsers into |{...}| Initializer code is usually indented and this indentation is carried over to generated code. This resulted in a piece of indented code in the middle of the parser. This commit wraps initializer code in |{...}|, which makes indentation in generated parsers look a bit more natural.
11 years ago
parts.push(indent4("{" + ast.initializer.code + "}"));
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
parts.push('');
}
if (options.optimize === "size") {
parts.push(' peg$result = peg$parseRule(peg$startRuleIndex);');
} else {
parts.push(' peg$result = peg$startRuleFunction();');
}
parts.push([
'',
Error handling: Use a special value (not |null|) to indicate failure Using a special value to indicate match failure instead of |null| allows actions to return |null| as a regular value. This simplifies e.g. the JSON parser. Note the special value is internal and intentionally undocumented. This means that there is currently no official way how to trigger a match failure from an action. This is a temporary state which will be fixed soon. The negative performance impact (see below) is probably caused by changing lot of comparisons against |null| (which likely check the value against a fixed constant representing |null| in the interpreter) to comparisons against the special value (which likely check the value against another value in the interpreter). Implements part of #198. Speed impact ------------ Before: 1146.82 kB/s After: 1031.25 kB/s Difference: -10.08% Size impact ----------- Before: 950817 b After: 973269 b Difference: 2.36% (Measured by /tools/impact with Node.js v0.6.18 on x86_64 GNU/Linux.)
11 years ago
' if (peg$result !== peg$FAILED && peg$currPos === input.length) {',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' return peg$result;',
' } else {',
Fix error messages in certain cases with trailing input In case the generated parser parsed successfully part of input and left some input unparsed (trailing input), the error message produced was sometimes wrong. The code worked correctly only if there were no match failures in the successfully parsed part (highly unlikely). This commit fixes things by explicitly triggering a match failure with the following expectation at the end of the successfully parsed part of the input: peg$fail({ type: "end", description: "end of input" }); This change also made it possible to simplify the |buildMessage| function, which can now ignore the case of no expectations. Fixes #119.
11 years ago
' if (peg$result !== peg$FAILED && peg$currPos < input.length) {',
' peg$fail({ type: "end", description: "end of input" });',
' }',
'',
' throw peg$buildException(null, peg$maxFailExpected, peg$maxFailPos);',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' }',
' }',
'',
' return {',
Mark |parse| and |SyntaxError| as internal identifiers The |parse| function and the |SyntaxError| exception were meant as internal, so let's mark them as such.
11 years ago
' SyntaxError: peg$SyntaxError,',
' parse: peg$parse',
Code generator rewrite This is a complete rewrite of the PEG.js code generator. Its goals are: 1. Allow optimizing the generated parser code for code size as well as for parsing speed. 2. Prepare ground for future optimizations and big features (like incremental parsing). 2. Replace the old template-based code-generation system with something more lightweight and flexible. 4. General code cleanup (structure, style, variable names, ...). New Architecture ---------------- The new code generator consists of two steps: * Bytecode generator -- produces bytecode for an abstract virtual machine * JavaScript generator -- produces JavaScript code based on the bytecode The abstract virtual machine is stack-based. Originally I wanted to make it register-based, but it turned out that all the code related to it would be more complex and the bytecode itself would be longer (because of explicit register specifications in instructions). The only downsides of the stack-based approach seem to be few small inefficiencies (see e.g. the |NIP| instruction), which seem to be insignificant. The new generator allows optimizing for parsing speed or code size (you can choose using the |optimize| option of the |PEG.buildParser| method or the --optimize/-o option on the command-line). When optimizing for size, the JavaScript generator emits the bytecode together with its constant table and a generic bytecode interpreter. Because the interpreter is small and the bytecode and constant table grow only slowly with size of the grammar, the resulting parser is also small. When optimizing for speed, the JavaScript generator just compiles the bytecode into JavaScript. The generated code is relatively efficient, so the resulting parser is fast. Internal Identifiers -------------------- As a small bonus, all internal identifiers visible to user code in the initializer, actions and predicates are prefixed by |peg$|. This lowers the chance that identifiers in user code will conflict with the ones from PEG.js. It also makes using any internals in user code ugly, which is a good thing. This solves GH-92. Performance ----------- The new code generator improved parsing speed and parser code size significantly. The generated parsers are now: * 39% faster when optimizing for speed * 69% smaller when optimizing for size (without minification) * 31% smaller when optimizing for size (with minification) (Parsing speed was measured using the |benchmark/run| script. Code size was measured by generating parsers for examples in the |examples| directory and adding up the file sizes. Minification was done by |uglify --ascii| in version 1.3.4.) Final Note ---------- This is just a beginning! The new code generator lays a foundation upon which many optimizations and improvements can (and will) be made. Stay tuned :-)
12 years ago
' };',
'})()'
].join('\n'));
ast.code = parts.join('\n');
Change module exporting style Modules now generally store the exported object in a named variable or function first and only assign |module.exports| at the very end. This is a difference when compared to style used until now, where most modules started with a |module.exports| assignment. I think the explicit name helps readability and understandability.
11 years ago
}
generate-javascript.js: s/generateJavaScript/generateJavascript/ This makes the variable name in sync with pass name in lib/compiler.js.
11 years ago
module.exports = generateJavascript;