Related articles |
---|
Requirements for Just-in-time Compilation jp@demonseed.net (jason petrone) (2001-04-22) |
Re: Requirements for Just-in-time Compilation at150bogomips@aol.com (2001-04-26) |
Re: Requirements for Just-in-time Compilation ralph@inputplus.demon.co.uk (2001-04-26) |
Re: Requirements for Just-in-time Compilation vbdis@aol.com (2001-04-26) |
Re: Requirements for Just-in-time Compilation jp@demonseed.net (jason petrone) (2001-04-29) |
Re: Requirements for Just-in-time Compilation Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca (2001-04-30) |
Re: Re: Requirements for Just-in-time Compilation bonzini@gnu.org (2001-06-07) |
From: | jason petrone <jp@demonseed.net> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 29 Apr 2001 02:11:17 -0400 |
Organization: | http://extra.newsguy.com |
References: | 01-04-120 01-04-132 |
Keywords: | summary |
Posted-Date: | 29 Apr 2001 02:11:17 EDT |
Thanks to all for your responses. They were very helpful.
Ralph Corderoy <ralph@inputplus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Yes, an external assembler pass would be too slow. Is anyone using the
> New Jersey Machine-Code Toolkit as part of a JIT or dynarec?
> http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~nr/toolkit/
I really knew it would be too slow, I just wanted to make sure, since I don't
really want to write an assembler. I am aware of the NJ-MC-TK, but I'm
thinking about trying GNU Lightning first(www.gnu.org/software/lightning).
>> It seems to me that supporting multiple architectures would require making
>> extra passes, and would slow things down.
> Why extra passes? A different backend would be used per architecture,
> no?
I'm thinking extra passes since I would need to have an architecture
independent intermediate representation, like RTL. I couldn't use something
like the single pass compiler that is the first example in the dragon book.
Thanks again to all
-jlp
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.