>>>>> "DLN" == David L Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DLN> Ken Fox wrote:
>> . The real problems of exception handling, closures, dynamic
>> scoping, etc. are just not possible to solve using simple C code.
>>
>> - Ken
DLN> I'm not talking about translating perl to C code, I'm talking about
DLN> translating perl to machine language.
DLN> C is babytalk compared to Perl, when it comes to being something
DLN> which is translatable to machine language. Ug.
the best fit is the TIL (threaded inline code) model we have
discussed. it generates just the sub calls and stack stuff in machine
code. the rest of the work is done with subs. it has some benefits on
both sides. it is not as hard to generate as full compilation and you
can get a good speedup by bypassing the opcode dispatch loop of the
interpreter.
this would just be a plugin to the backend and it could support multiple
cpu types with a set of architecture specific modules.
you could then deliver perl as a single binary (though easily decoded)
which many want for ease of delivery (but what about loading modules?).
in any case, TIL is not JIT but a full pass done by a backend to
generate the sub calls.
uri
--
Uri Guttman --------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------- http://www.sysarch.com
SYStems ARCHitecture, Software Engineering, Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting
The Perl Books Page ----------- http://www.sysarch.com/cgi-bin/perl_books
The Best Search Engine on the Net ---------- http://www.northernlight.com
