Re: A microcontroller-centric, target-neutral programming language

grante@visi.com (Grant Edwards)
25 Jul 2003 21:13:38 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
A microcontroller-centric, target-neutral programming language petegray@ieee.org (Pete Gray) (2003-07-15)
Re: A microcontroller-centric, target-neutral programming language mark.piffer@chello.at (2003-07-21)
Re: A microcontroller-centric, target-neutral programming language petegray@ieee.org (Pete Gray) (2003-07-23)
Re: A microcontroller-centric, target-neutral programming langua grante@visi.com (2003-07-25)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: grante@visi.com (Grant Edwards)
Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded,comp.compilers
Date: 25 Jul 2003 21:13:38 -0400
Organization: VISI.com
References: 03-07-103 03-07-159 03-07-165
Keywords: storage
Posted-Date: 25 Jul 2003 21:13:38 EDT

  Pete Gray wrote:


> Target-neutral in the sense that a generic p-code would be
> generated, as a transient state between the high-level language
> and assembly language. Target-neutral p-code (or as I refer to
> it, n-code) to target-specific assembly code translators would
> then be created, as required, for each target. Naturally, the
> n-code would need to contain enough detailed information for
> the "n-code to assembly language translator" to be effective.


How does this differ from other compilers (gcc for example)?


> The benefit being the logical and physical separation of the
> language and compiler from the target. Adopting this scheme
> allows all targets to benefit from enhancements to the language
> (and compiler) without the need for target-specific compiler
> modifications. It removes the need for target-specific ports of
> the compiler.


AFAIK, this is pretty much SOP for compilers these days. It's
how gcc works.


> An additional (and significant) benefit to this design is that
> once a suitable n-code scheme is adopted, compilers for "other"
> high-level languages could be developed to generate n-code. The
> point here being that when these new compilers are developed,
> they will already be able to support targets for which "n-code
> to assembly language translators" have been developed.


Yup. That's why when you build gcc you can pick from a
half-dozen or more languages and a dozen or so target
architectures.


> Having said all that, the focus of my question was meant to be
> "Open Source versus Sponsorship" ... he said, trying to ensure
> the nature of the original post isn't bypassed.


I still maintain that "Open Source" and "Sponsorship" are not
mutually exclusive, and are, in fact, orthogonal concepts.


--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I want the presidency
                                                                    at so bad I can already taste
                                                              visi.com the hors d'oeuvres.


Post a followup to this message

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