Greetings, On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:38:04 +0200, Joep Suijs wrote
> My no means a silly question, but an obvious one and iirc, Wouter > even asked for a 'C backend' as a universal target and not a new > tool. I had a look ad the pcode output and learned that it is currently > output too late since vars are already resolved. A subsequent look at > the compiler source learned that I would need quite some support from > you to change this, while your time seems scarce these days. I'd be very interested in an offline discussion with you about this. I would much like to see a second backend to the existing compiler as it would show the weaknesses of the existing structure. (I'd like a different front end for the same reason, but that's a different topic :) I can already think of a few difficulties, but none of them seem major to me -- the biggest one is expressions. These are not currently kept in the pcode, but are translated to individual instructions early on. For a C back end, these should probably be kept around intact. Another interesting one would be support for odd-sized variables, but you'll run into this either way. An advantage to using the existing compiler is guaranteed bug-for-bug compatibility :) The p-code definitions are pretty stable -- they've not changed much since 2005. I don't mean to take away from the excellent work you guys have been doing -- and you got to learn something new, always a plus. Have a good weekend. --kyle -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
