|A microcontroller-centric, target-neutral programming language firstname.lastname@example.org (Pete Gray) (2003-07-15)|
|Re: A microcontroller-centric, target-neutral programming language email@example.com (2003-07-21)|
|Re: A microcontroller-centric, target-neutral programming language firstname.lastname@example.org (Pete Gray) (2003-07-23)|
|Re: A microcontroller-centric, target-neutral programming langua email@example.com (2003-07-25)|
|Re: UNCOL again, was A microcontroller-centric, target-neutral firstname.lastname@example.org (2003-07-25)|
|From:||"Pete Gray" <email@example.com>|
|Date:||23 Jul 2003 10:36:20 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||23 Jul 2003 10:36:20 EDT|
Thanks to everyone for the feedback - both via direct email and through the
Some more info (sorry, but I've been responding to individual emails, rather
than to the group - I don't have newsgroup access from my workplace) ...
Target-neutral in the sense that a generic p-code would be generated, as a
transient state between the high-level language and assembly language.
Target-neutral p-code (or as I refer to it, n-code) to target-specific
assembly code translators would then be created, as required, for each
target. Naturally, the n-code would need to contain enough detailed
information for the "n-code to assembly language translator" to be
The benefit being the logical and physical separation of the language and
compiler from the target. Adopting this scheme allows all targets to benefit
from enhancements to the language (and compiler) without the need for
target-specific compiler modifications. It removes the need for
target-specific ports of the compiler.
An additional (and significant) benefit to this design is that once a
suitable n-code scheme is adopted, compilers for "other" high-level
languages could be developed to generate n-code. The point here being that
when these new compilers are developed, they will already be able to support
targets for which "n-code to assembly language translators" have been
Having said all that, the focus of my question was meant to be "Open Source
versus Sponsorship" ... he said, trying to ensure the nature of the original
post isn't bypassed.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.