|Request: references on BURS email@example.com (1993-07-28)|
|Re: Request: references on BURS firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-07-28)|
|Re: Request: references on BURS email@example.com (1993-07-28)|
|Re: Request: references on BURS firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-07-29)|
|From:||email@example.com (Chris DONAWA)|
|Date:||Wed, 28 Jul 1993 21:24:07 GMT|
: Could someone please post some references on papers on BURS (Bottom Up
: Rewrite Systems). Any work that uses BURS is welcome. I'm particularly
: interested in how BURS compares with TWIG.
Check out Burg and Iburg. Iburg is much faster and more robust than TWIG
There are two articles of interest:
burg.ps PostScript for
C. W. Fraser, R. R. Henry and T. A. Proebsting,
`BURG -- Fast optimal instruction selection and tree parsing,'
SIGPLAN Notices 27, 4 (Apr. 1992), 68-76. 9 pages.
iburg.ps PostScript for
C. W. Fraser, D. R. Hanson and T. A. Proebsting,
`Engineering a simple, efficient code generator generator,'
ACM Letters on Programming Languages and Systems, 1993,
to appear. 14 pages.
The second one has a comparison of BURG with TWIG, and BURG uses BURS.
They are available (along with iburg) from ftp.cs.princeton.edu
(184.108.40.206) in pub/iburg.tar.Z.
: Also, I was told that there is a well known paper that proved optimal code
: generation for dags is NP-complete. Does anyone know its reference?
Look in the Dragon book, I seem to remember something there (although
my memory is fading....)
Burg and Iburg claim to be able to generate
an optimal cover for given patterns. A pattern would correspond to
an AST whose root node is a modify statement e.g.
a := a +b -c *d;
so it works quite well for CISC architectures, but it's fast pattern matching
ability isn't so advantageous for RISC (we just use it as a portable high
level tool for code generation).
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.