Re: Non-sequential compilation.

macrakis@osf.org (Stavros Macrakis)
Tue, 21 Sep 1993 16:06:51 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Non-sequential compilation. KODIS@delphi.com (1993-09-18)
Re: Non-sequential compilation. macrakis@osf.org (1993-09-21)
Re: Non-sequential compilation. cliffc@rice.edu (1993-09-21)
Re: Non-sequential compilation. pcg@aber.ac.uk (1993-09-21)
Re: Non-sequential compilation. conway@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (1993-09-22)
Re: Non-sequential compilation. gafter@mri.com (1993-09-27)
Re: Non-sequential compilation. rbe@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM (1993-10-04)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: macrakis@osf.org (Stavros Macrakis)
Keywords: design, parallel
Organization: OSF Research Institute
References: 93-09-068
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 16:06:51 GMT

KODIS@delphi.com writes:


      ...is the sequential, stream orientated processing of current
      compiler theory something which is being clung to beyond its
      usefulness?... [consider the approach where] a source file is
      completly read or mapped into memory before translation begins....


I'm not sure it's terribly useful to read the whole _source_ into memory
at once; after all, you only want to do tokenization and parsing once. On
the other hand, it may well be useful to keep large intermediate
representations around for global optimization.


Note also that there _has_ been research into exploiting parallelism for
compilation at a finer grain than pmake (i.e. apply parallelism to
individual source files). See, for instance, Jamie Frankel's PhD thesis
(Harvard, 1984 or so).


-s
--

Post a followup to this message

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