Re: Architecture description languages for compilers?

pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:06:29 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Architecture description languages for compilers? eigenstr@cs.rose-hulman.edu (1993-01-25)
Architecture description languages for compilers? tac@eos.ncsu.edu (1993-01-26)
Re: Architecture description languages for compilers? brent@eng.uiowa.edu (1993-01-27)
Re: Architecture description languages for compilers? arh@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Henson) (1993-01-27)
Re: Architecture description languages for compilers? pardo@cs.washington.edu (1993-01-28)
Re: Architecture description languages for compilers? zstern@adobe.com (1993-01-28)
Thompson's 2c vs. gcc mike@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu (Michael John Haertel) (1993-01-29)
Re: Architecture description languages for compilers? wjw@eb.ele.tue.nl (1993-02-01)
Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc preston@dawn.cs.rice.edu (1993-02-02)
Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc mike@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu (Michael John Haertel) (1993-02-04)
Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (1993-02-04)
[5 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:06:29 GMT
References: 93-01-180 93-01-197
Keywords: architecture, VHDL

brent@eng.uiowa.edu (Brent H. Pease) writes:
>>[Machine descriptions for code generation.]


Ken Thompson ("A New C Compiler", Proceedings of the Summer 1990 UKUUG
Conference, London, July 1990; avaialable via anonymous ftp from
research.att.com in dist/plan9doc/8.Z) claims that it was easier for him
to hard-code a new code generator for each back end than it was to write a
machine description.


It is an amusing exercie to compare the listed md sizes for the Thompson
compiler to the GCC md sizes for the same machines. I can't say whether
the code is comparable: Thompson claims the compile time is half that of
GCC and run time is 75% that of GCC, but it shows only slightly better run
times than lcc, and a previous comp.compilers article said lcc was
substantially worse than GCC.


At any rate, any study of machine description languges should mention the
compiler.


;-D on ( Architec tour guide ) Pardo
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.