Re: Semantic (Type) analysis phase question

Tom Moog <tmoog@polhode.com>
3 Apr 2000 04:05:40 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Semantic (Type) analysis phase question lojedaortiz@interlink.com.ar (Nicolás) (2000-03-23)
Re: Semantic (Type) analysis phase question thp@roam-thp2.cs.ucr.edu (Tom Payne) (2000-03-23)
Re: Semantic (Type) analysis phase question pmoisset@usc.edu (Pablo Moisset) (2000-03-25)
Re: Semantic (Type) analysis phase question rkrayhawk@aol.com (2000-04-01)
Re: Semantic (Type) analysis phase question tmoog@polhode.com (Tom Moog) (2000-04-03)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Tom Moog <tmoog@polhode.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 3 Apr 2000 04:05:40 -0400
Organization: Polhode Inc
References: 00-03-138 00-04-004
Keywords: analysis, errors

I agree that one should use the quality of error messages in mind when
deciding where to issue error messages.


However, in many cases even such simple things as type checking cannot
be performed easily at parse time. There is the case of Java in which
classes may forward reference members. There is the case of VHDL
which can overload functions based on the return type as well as the
type of operands. In the case of VHDL one sometime must compare the
possible interpretations of two overloaded identifiers in order to
determine the type of a third operator:


f(i) := g(j);


Another oddity of VHDL is that f might have two perfectly valid
interpretations: (a) a parameterless function returning a vector or
(b) a function of one parameter returning a pointer to a scalar.


Tom Moog
Polhode, Inc.


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.