Re: UNCOL = Uncool?

We don't need to clutter the mailing list with this.. but
"Daniel C. Wang" <danwang+news@cs.princeton.edu> writes:
{stuff deleted}
> [You're falling in the classic UNCOL trap: it looks good for some cases,
> we just have to generalize it a little bit. That's always where it fails.
> -John PS: Can you fix that sticky . key?]


Whatever it is.. it only has to be "sufficiently general" and I believe that
there have been sufficiently general UNCOL's. The the idea of an UNCOL need
not be frowned upon as "impossible".


Look at Transmeta's approach They are using x86 as and "UNCOL" of sorts for
their various different VLIW processors. So even x86 is "sufficiently
general" for VLIW processors cores.
[It has to be sufficiently general to handle some range of source
languages and some range of target languages efficiently enough that
people would want to use the compiler that results. If the only
source languages you care about are C and Fortran, and the targets are
32 bit little-endian byte addressed micros, it's not a hard job. If
the source languages also include Cobol and Common Lisp, we don't know
how to do it.
I don't see Transmeta as very relevant since part of their goal is
specifically to run x86 code so their system is tuned to make that work
well. Source language semantics look like a harder problem than code
generation anyway. -John]

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.