|Intermediate Representation firstname.lastname@example.org (2001-10-10)|
|Re: Intermediate Representation email@example.com (Jon Beniston) (2001-10-12)|
|Re: Intermediate Representation firstname.lastname@example.org (2001-10-12)|
|Intermediate Representation napi@rangkom.MY (1990-08-07)|
|Re: Intermediate Representation briscoe-duke@CS.YALE.EDU (Duke Briscoe) (1990-08-08)|
|Re: Intermediate Representation email@example.com (Preston Briggs) (1990-08-08)|
|Re: Intermediate Representation firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael O'Donnell (508)392-2915) (1990-08-09)|
|Re: Intermediate Representation grover@brahmand.Eng.Sun.COM (1990-08-09)|
|Re: Intermediate Representation email@example.com (1990-08-10)|
|Re: Intermediate Representation firstname.lastname@example.org (1990-08-12)|
|[18 later articles]|
|From:||napi@rangkom.MY (Mohd Hanafiah b. Abdullah)|
|Date:||Tue, 07 Aug 90 15:34:07 GMT|
I would like know what people think is the best Intermediate Representation
(IR) to be used for highly effective optimizations and code generation, and
it should be portable. An IR is one of the most crucial considerations in
designing a competent compiler.
Examples of IRs that I know:
(1) Abstract-syntax-tree (looks like Scheme code)
(3) Three address code
(5) Stanford's U-code
I'm more leaning towards "abstract-syntax-tree" since it is portable (machine
independent), readable, visibility of high-level structures (eg. loops) for
effective optimizations, language independent most of the time.
What do you think?
Please respond by email since I don't have online access to USENET
[But copy your messages to compilers if they're of general interest,
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.