|Compilers vs. Interpreters (WAS: Unsafe Optimizations) email@example.com (1990-06-23)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (David Keppel)|
|Keywords:||C, interpreter, debug|
|Organization:||University of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle|
|Date:||Sat, 23 Jun 90 21:38:59 GMT|
David S. Harrison <davidh@dent.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
>[Some advantages of interpreters:
> * Develop testing while compiler under development.
> * Sanity check compare to compiled code (had better run on both).
> * Useful for debugging.]
>[Why don't most compiled languages also have an interpreter?]
There's more code to maintain, sometimes a large ammount of code.
Something that MIGHT be useful would be to write an instruction set
simulator for a simple (imaginary) architecture, and start by
retargeting your compiler to that. Then, only the ISA interpreter
has to be ported to get the system `up and running'.
Debuggers for interpreted code and debuggers for compiled code tend
to be different for various reasons. The approach above doesn't
;-D on ( Take my symbol table ... please ) Pardo
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.