|Bytecode an intermediate language? firstname.lastname@example.org (2003-09-14)|
|Re: Bytecode an intermediate language? email@example.com (2003-09-23)|
|Re: Bytecode an intermediate language? firstname.lastname@example.org (2003-09-27)|
|Re: Bytecode an intermediate language? email@example.com (2003-09-27)|
|Date:||23 Sep 2003 13:01:06 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||23 Sep 2003 13:01:05 EDT|
firstname.lastname@example.org (Rajni) wrote in message news:03-09-055...
> I am contructing a C compiler as student project. I am not sure
> whether bytecode is an intermediate language just like three-address
> code or abstract syntax trees. Which intermediate language should be
> preferred if I want minimal effort in porting the compiler on
> different machines. Does bytecode help in a better way.
> [When I do bytecode, I generally use a string of reverse polish
> operators so I can interpret it with a single simple value stack.
Actually I am having a different doubt. From what I can understand
from previous discussions on intermediate representations is that the
representation to be chosen depends on the optimization techniques to
be employed in compiler. But I can't get any concrete answer with
respect to different representations. Does the choice of intermediate
representation also depend on source language and portability. Does
bytecode also serves the same purpose as intermediate language. Please
[It's true, bytecodes are fine to output to an interpreter, but they're not a
very good intermediate form. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.