|Generating JIT compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (Jens Troeger) (2003-07-02)|
|Re: Generating JIT compilers email@example.com (Eric Eide) (2003-07-04)|
|Re: Generating JIT compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (Lex Spoon) (2003-07-04)|
|Re: Generating JIT compilers email@example.com (2003-07-04)|
|Re: Generating JIT compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (Jens Troeger) (2003-07-13)|
|Re: Generating JIT compilers email@example.com (2003-07-17)|
|Re: Generating JIT compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (Jens Troeger) (2003-07-21)|
|From:||email@example.com (Paolo Bonzini)|
|Date:||4 Jul 2003 00:10:22 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||04 Jul 2003 00:10:22 EDT|
[please don't capitalize like this]
> I Think I Will Go For The Template Approach First, I.E. To
> Generate A Static Mapping From Source To Target Instructions,
> Which Is Used At Runtime To Emit The Target Instructions.
> But Before I Reinvent The Wheel... Is Anybody Aware Of Such
The template approach is used in many different sauces:
1) Generate a mapping from source language to assembly, without any
hope of retargeting. See Ian Piumarta's ccg (google for it).
2) Generate a mapping from source language to an intermediate generic
assembly language, and then from this to a variety of assembly
languages. See my own GNU lightning and Dawson Engler's vcode.
3) A cool approach (but I don't have performance data) is to map from
source language to C and then parse the executable to obtain good
assembly templates. See Fabrice Bellard's qemu.
> At The Moment I Tinker Around With Specifications, And How
> An Instruction Selector For A JIT Compiler Could Be Generated.
Apart from template based, you can try a very simple maximal munch
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.