|Requirements for Just-in-time Compilation email@example.com (jason petrone) (2001-04-22)|
|Re: Requirements for Just-in-time Compilation firstname.lastname@example.org (2001-04-26)|
|Re: Requirements for Just-in-time Compilation email@example.com (2001-04-26)|
|Re: Requirements for Just-in-time Compilation firstname.lastname@example.org (2001-04-26)|
|Re: Requirements for Just-in-time Compilation email@example.com (jason petrone) (2001-04-29)|
|Re: Requirements for Just-in-time Compilation Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca (2001-04-30)|
|Re: Re: Requirements for Just-in-time Compilation firstname.lastname@example.org (2001-06-07)|
|From:||jason petrone <email@example.com>|
|Date:||29 Apr 2001 02:11:17 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||29 Apr 2001 02:11:17 EDT|
Thanks to all for your responses. They were very helpful.
Ralph Corderoy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Yes, an external assembler pass would be too slow. Is anyone using the
> New Jersey Machine-Code Toolkit as part of a JIT or dynarec?
I really knew it would be too slow, I just wanted to make sure, since I don't
really want to write an assembler. I am aware of the NJ-MC-TK, but I'm
thinking about trying GNU Lightning first(www.gnu.org/software/lightning).
>> It seems to me that supporting multiple architectures would require making
>> extra passes, and would slow things down.
> Why extra passes? A different backend would be used per architecture,
I'm thinking extra passes since I would need to have an architecture
independent intermediate representation, like RTL. I couldn't use something
like the single pass compiler that is the first example in the dragon book.
Thanks again to all
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.