1. TkSee/SN Experiences with the parser benchmark IWPC 2002, Paris S. Marchenko and T. Lethbridge

2. Parser Architecture tkSee/SN parser C/C++ source C/C++ parser SN DB API GXL File(s) SN 5.0 parsing engine. Cross- reference data file Pass 1. generating code information TCL API System calls GXL generator Direct code info extractor SN DB Manager Pass 2. generating cross- reference information

3. Source Navigator Database Structure Inheritances Global variables Constants Enumerations Inclusions Enumerated constants Function declarations Instance variables Function implementations File symbols Macros Method declarations Method implementations Typedefs Referenced-BY… Referenced-TO… Classes

4. TkSee/SN on the benchmark: Positive points Parser always produced output for all tests No crashes Benchmark results can be easily recreated by other. We use “free” software tools including our parser. Answer-generation scripts are included along with the results). For “generated code” results we process the embedded code in the original lex/yacc source along with the generated results

5. TkSee/SN on the benchmark: Negative points. Accuracy and completeness of information extracted by parser was limited by supported language dialects: Not all examples were C++, K&R C, and ANSI C, which we support Some tests were apparently from other dialects Not supported: Pre-processing directives. Namespaces Operator overloading. Parser is not capable of “run-time” call resolution

6. Feedback on the benchmark (1) Benchmark helped us to fix a few bugs in our parser Related to accuracy of results Additional questions added for this iteration were useful Extraction of positions information in terms of offset in bytes from the beginning of the source files: This was formally possible in TkSee We moved away from it to line/character positions due to an attempt to conform to what everybody else is doing!

7. Feedback on the benchmark (2) “Heterogeneous” examples E.g. combination of C/SQL Benchmark should perhaps not ask about the content of the embedded language since the main intention of the test is comparison of C/C++ parsers. Some questions had to be answered rather indirectly E.g. Number of Macros used to compute number of #define DMM did not fully support some questions, but we could ‘stretch’ it!