|Stack-based IR vs. Register-based IR firstname.lastname@example.org (Evan Cheng) (1996-07-20)|
|Stack-based IR vs. Register-based IR email@example.com (John Gough) (1996-07-22)|
|Re: Stack-based IR vs. Register-based IR firstname.lastname@example.org (Patrick Logan) (1996-07-23)|
|Re: Stack-based IR vs. Register-based IR email@example.com (1996-07-26)|
|From:||Patrick Logan <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||23 Jul 1996 23:36:29 -0400|
Evan Cheng wrote:
> I am hoping to induce some discussion on the merits (or lack of)
> of stack-based intermediate representations and register-based ones.
> Pointers to papers would be much appreciated as well.
See Richard Kelsey's thesis at Yale (ca. 1988-89?) and the subsequent
work done by Appel, et al. on the SML/NJ compiler.
These works indicate that a continuation-passing/closure-passing
style of IR is better than either stack or register based IR for
a variety of reasons.
"Analysis means taking things apart for examination, while
design is to work out the structure or form of something."
-Seamless Object-Oriented Software Architecture, Walden & Nerson
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.