Re: newbie: general compilers question: static checking

vbdis@aol.com (VBDis)
8 Nov 2003 01:41:37 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
newbie: general compilers question: static checking nzanella@cs.mun.ca (Neil Zanella) (2003-11-02)
Re: newbie: general compilers question: static checking derkgwen@HotPOP.com (Derk Gwen) (2003-11-08)
Re: newbie: general compilers question: static checking clausing@voyager.net (Brian Clausing) (2003-11-08)
Re: newbie: general compilers question: static checking bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2003-11-08)
Re: newbie: general compilers question: static checking vbdis@aol.com (2003-11-08)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: vbdis@aol.com (VBDis)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 8 Nov 2003 01:41:37 -0500
Organization: AOL Bertelsmann Online GmbH & Co. KG http://www.germany.aol.com
References: 03-11-015
Keywords: analysis
Posted-Date: 08 Nov 2003 01:41:37 EST

  Neil Zanella <nzanella@cs.mun.ca> schreibt:


>In particular, I would like to know what the relationship between
>semantic analysis and static checking is.


I'm not sure, but I think that static checking can be done at compile
time, as opposed to dynamic checking at runtime. Semantic analysis
will not only reveal semantical errors, as you have listed, but it
also can determine which conditions can (not) be checked at compile
time. The known conditions then allow to eliminate e.g. dead code or
redundant tests.


DoDi

Post a followup to this message

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