|Non-sequential compilation. KODIS@delphi.com (1993-09-18)|
|Re: Non-sequential compilation. firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-09-21)|
|Re: Non-sequential compilation. email@example.com (1993-09-21)|
|Re: Non-sequential compilation. firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-09-21)|
|Re: Non-sequential compilation. email@example.com.OZ.AU (1993-09-22)|
|Re: Non-sequential compilation. firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-09-27)|
|Re: Non-sequential compilation. email@example.com.COM (1993-10-04)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Stavros Macrakis)|
|Organization:||OSF Research Institute|
|Date:||Tue, 21 Sep 1993 16:06:51 GMT|
...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).
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.