|[8 earlier articles]|
|Re: Compiler and interpreter origins Martin.Ward@durham.ac.uk (Martin Ward) (2004-08-10)|
|Re: Compiler and interpreter origins email@example.com (Scott Moore) (2004-08-10)|
|Re: Compiler and interpreter origins firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-08-11)|
|Re: Compiler and interpreter origins email@example.com (Dave Thompson) (2004-08-23)|
|Re: Compiler and interpreter origins firstname.lastname@example.org (Jeremy Wright) (2004-08-25)|
|Re: Compiler and interpreter origins email@example.com (2004-09-03)|
|Re: Compiler and interpreter origins firstname.lastname@example.org (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2004-09-07)|
|From:||glen herrmannsfeldt <email@example.com>|
|Date:||7 Sep 2004 23:52:42 -0400|
|References:||04-07-077 04-08-010 04-08-033 04-08-108 04-08-146 04-09-005|
|Posted-Date:||07 Sep 2004 23:52:42 EDT|
Torben Ęgidius Mogensen wrote:
(snip regarding self modifying code)
> If you are working with a system that uses interpreted byte-code,
> the difference becomes muddled: If a program modifies its byte-code,
> is that self-modifying code? The byte-code is definitely modified,
> but you can argue that that the actual code is the interpreter,
> which isn't modified. If you add JIT compilation to the byte-code
> interpreter, the issue becomes even murkier.
And if your machine is microprogrammed, does that make a
If it has writable control store?
If programs are allowed to write into the writable control store?
If the JIT compiler writes to writable control store?
If programs interpreted by the JIT compiler can write to
the writable control store?
Lots of very murky possibilities.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.