|Re: Mixing languages firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-06-03)|
|Re: Mixing languages email@example.com (1995-06-05)|
|Re: Mixing languages firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-06-24)|
|Re: Mixing languages gbaker@rp.CSIRO.AU (1995-06-27)|
|Re: Mixing languages email@example.com (1995-06-28)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Kurt Stephens)|
|Organization:||Swiss Bank Corporation CM&T Division|
|Date:||Sat, 3 Jun 1995 10:53:55 GMT|
Richard A. O'Keefe writes
> This is exactly what Sun are doing with Java. They compile to a portable
> stack machine bytecode format, but for real performance they have a back end
> that converts that to native code. It isn't terribly hard to write a back
> end that can do a *lot* better than even a threaded interpreter, even if it
> is not quite what a highly optimising native-through-and-through compiler
> might achieve.
Why reinvent the wheel with another VM/BYTECODE system? Use a subset of
the Intel x86 instruction set and write *ONE* portable emulator for
non-Intel machines. This "bytecode" is supported in hardware by 90% of
the world's computers. ;^)
(Actually I think the x86 is a tired, old instruction set; a poor register
set, etc. but it is the most widely used and is not going away, sigh...)
I would like to see GCC packaged as a linkable library (or a server) so we
can call a function (imagine some thing like "void* GCC_compile(RTL
expression)") with a RTL tree and have it return a function pointer!
Has any one designed an embeddable, portable, retargetable "compiler"
All the best,
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.