Re: writing a compiler...

"Conor O'Neill" <Conor.ONeill.NoSpamPlease@logicacmg.com>
20 Jun 2003 00:13:20 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
writing a compiler... ltk_RE_MO_VE_@libero.it (Tommy) (2003-06-03)
Re: writing a compiler... vrotaru@seznam.cz (Vasile Rotaru) (2003-06-05)
Re: writing a compiler... m.a.ellis@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk (2003-06-05)
Re: writing a compiler... JeffKenton@attbi.com (Jeff Kenton) (2003-06-05)
Re: writing a compiler... cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2003-06-05)
Re: writing a compiler... Steve_Lipscombe@amat.com (2003-06-08)
Re: writing a compiler... vbdis@aol.com (2003-06-20)
Re: writing a compiler... Conor.ONeill.NoSpamPlease@logicacmg.com (Conor O'Neill) (2003-06-20)
Re: writing a compiler... lex@cc.gatech.edu (Lex Spoon) (2003-06-25)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Conor O'Neill" <Conor.ONeill.NoSpamPlease@logicacmg.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 20 Jun 2003 00:13:20 -0400
Organization: LogicaCMG UK
References: 03-06-016 03-06-046
Keywords: design, optimize
Posted-Date: 20 Jun 2003 00:13:20 EDT

  m.a.ellis@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk writes
>Mmph. In a round about, fudge it a bit here, kind of way....
>
>IIRC it's Pascal that allows something like:
>if f(a) and g(b) then ...
>to evaluate f() and g() in either order.
>
>But if f() and g() have side-effects such that the behaviour of the
>program is determined by which executes first, then the program is
>wrong. I don't think that's something that can be checked by a
>compiler on an arbitrary program?


This is entirely checkable, if the language distinguishes between
'functions', which have no side-effects, and 'procedures', which may
have. Occam 2 has this property.


--
Conor O'Neill, Bristol, UK. Not speaking for my employer.

Post a followup to this message

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