|Compiler Deisgn. Matthew.Webb@net1.demon.co.uk (Matthew Webb) (1998-05-12)|
|Re: Compiler Deisgn. email@example.com (1998-05-15)|
|Re: Compiler Deisgn. firstname.lastname@example.org (Kirk Abbott) (1998-05-15)|
|Re: Compiler Deisgn. email@example.com (Gabor DEAK JAHN) (1998-05-16)|
|Re: Compiler Deisgn. firstname.lastname@example.org (1998-05-27)|
|Re: Compiler Design. email@example.com (Torbjorn Drevin) (1998-05-30)|
|Re: Compiler Design. firstname.lastname@example.org (1998-06-03)|
|From:||Kirk Abbott <email@example.com>|
|Date:||15 May 1998 22:39:48 -0400|
|Organization:||EarthLink Network, Inc.|
Years ago I read a paper by Anton Erl of gForth fame on writing fast
interpreters. He discussed issues similar to what you are asking. He
suggested different structures which required using some extensions in
the gnu c compiler. See if you can track him down.
Matthew Webb wrote:
> I have written a disassembler and a comming assembler. I have not
> studied compiler design and so do not know the best way of doing it. My
> diassembler/assembler are bassically just one massive case statment on
> the bytes or text strings. The look identical but the reversed. They are
> just a single pass, nothing fancy.
> Can anyone give another structure other than a case statment please?
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.