Sean O'Rourke wrote: > However, if we already have a working register > allocator and peephole optimizer, I see little reason to write another.
Maybe you're taking a very perl6-centric view. (I don't know.) But as someone who's writing an Tcl-to-parrot compiler (for (hypothetical) example), I might very well want to implement a different allocator and optimizer. > > >While imcc is cool and worthy, it probably oughtn't be discussed on > > >this list untless/until it is a "blessed" member of the parrot suite. > > As opposed to the blessed BASIC and Befunge? No. Basic, befunge, et alia exist as "standard proofs of concept" for HLL compilers targeting parrot. If y'all want to consider imcc as just another member of that class, fine! But if we tell compiler writers "You should target imcc, not parrot directly", then imcc is clearly in a class by itself. And why did I not squawk about the befunge matter a few days ago? Because that wasn't about befunge syntax (AFAICT). And no one has suggested that HLL compiler writers shoudl emit befunge. Yet. :-) But OTOH, I don't really mind if the imcc stuff is discussed here; I'm more interested in a resolution to the question of how blessed a child we mean it to be. -- John Douglas Porter
