Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| [6 earlier articles] |
| Re: Generating Java Bytecode chapados@nortel.ca (nicolas (n.) chapados) (1996-11-19) |
| Re: Generating Java Bytecode gunnar@candleweb.no (Gunnar R|nning) (1996-11-19) |
| Re: Generating Java Bytecode jsa@alexandria.organon.com (1996-11-19) |
| Re: Generating Java Bytecode john@dwaf-hri.pwv.gov.za (John Carter) (1996-11-21) |
| Re: Generating Java Bytecode jhummel@crispix.ICS.UCI.EDU (Joe Hummel) (1996-11-21) |
| Re: Generating Java Bytecode bmd@cs.kuleuven.ac.be (Bart Demoen) (1996-11-21) |
| Re: Generating Java Bytecode stephens@math.ruu.nl (Bruce Stephens) (1996-11-21) |
| Re: Generating Java Bytecode torhr@storm.stud.ntnu.no (1996-11-21) |
| Re: Generating Java Bytecode kuznetso@MIT.EDU (1996-11-21) |
| Re: Generating Java Bytecode billms@ee.ucla.edu (Bill Mangione-Smith) (1996-11-21) |
| Re: Generating Java Bytecode pardo@cs.washington.edu (1996-11-21) |
| Re: Generating Java Bytecode lynch@frigg.cci.de (Andrew Lynch) (1996-11-24) |
| Re: Generating Java Bytecode am56@dial.pipex.com (Stefan Heinzmann) (1996-11-24) |
| [9 later articles] |
| From: | Bruce Stephens <stephens@math.ruu.nl> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 21 Nov 1996 23:08:55 -0500 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 96-11-108 96-11-121 |
| Keywords: | UNCOL |
| In-reply-to: | kuznetso@MIT.EDU's message of 19 Nov 1996 00:28:09 -0500 |
> [Before you head down this path, you really should look at the
> history and learn why all the previous UNCOL projects failed. They
> all looked great with one or two input languages and targets, then
> collapsed of heat death when they tried to generalize more. -John]
Has this happened to ANDF yet? ANDF strikes me (as an idea; I have no
experience of it in practice) as a Good Thing, because it keeps lots
of high-level information which is of potential use in producing
machine code from ANDF. For example, although array bounds checks
would be lovely, I'd like my final code to contain very few of them,
particularly inside loops! I can imagine it being difficult to safely
remove bounds checks in a poorly designed bytecode: one would
potentially have to reconstruct the loops and things.
On the other hand, ANDF probably isn't appropriate for chips to execute.
[Haven't heard much about ANDF lately, perhaps Stavros M. can point us
at recent info. -John]
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.