I just shocked to find out that my parser with Spirit-classic is 4x slower than my original ad-hoc parser. I do generate parsetree with pt_parse().

So does my adhoc parser but my adhoc one generates its own custom parse tree.

My question are:

1. Does spirit classic with generation of parse tree is known to be slow?

2. Does anyone have ever done perf study and compare Spirit.Classic with Spirit.Qi (assuming to generate custom parse tree in Spirit.Qi)?

3. If the bottleneck is in the Spirit.Classic parse tree generation, has anyone ever done a custom parse tree generation in Spirit.Classic?

For now it seems I am hitting a roadblock to use Spirit as performance is my main issue. Your insight is highly appreciated.

Hi, you should consider switching to spirit2.1, as its shipped with boost 1.41. I will quote a mail from Hartmut which has written to the list just a few days ago, for a few more details:

...

Using Boost.Spirit, when I group nodes with a leaf_node_d directive and call parse_ast, it looks like I get a node whose value includes some characters that are supposed to be skipped.

My questions: am I missing anything? Is this intended? If yes, what am I missing (again)? Is there a way to work around this?

Here is a simple example program (it should compile and demonstrate what I mean, with boost 1.39 and 1.40)

The implementation of AST's in Spirit.Classic is known to be slow and buggy at times. That's one of the reasons why we developed Spirit 2 (now released with Boost 1.41, but usable with any Boost >= V1.37).

You should consider switching to the new version! Regards Hartmut

regards Jens Weller -- Preisknaller: GMX DSL Flatrate für nur 16,99 Euro/mtl.! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02