At 01:38 AM 10/24/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 08:33:23PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > so the TIL generated code would still to parameter setup, then an
> > indirect function call and then result handling. it should still be
> > faster than an interpreter and simpler to generate than fully compiled
> > code.
>
>Is this actually, in any sense of the word, true?
Yup.
>I mean, given three-address code, I find anything equally difficult to
>generate.
Code generation's reasonably simple. Since what you're doing is really very
repetitive, you can get by with some chunks of boilerplate with some fillin
blanks. Sure it's just a set of calls into the perl interpreter pretty much
identical to what you get after a run through B::C, but that does work.
As for speed, going this way means we toss the loop, which is good. Loops
are wasted overhead for what we want to be doing.
>I don't see anything that distinguishes this from the ordinary process of
>generating code with a runtime library and a stack.
There isn't, much.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
