Re: Two questions about compiler design

Jens Troeger <j.troeger@qut.edu.au>
12 Feb 2004 11:28:59 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Two questions about compiler design blitz@bad-logic.com (2004-02-01)
Re: Two questions about compiler design david.waller1@blueyonder.co.uk (david.waller) (2004-02-04)
Re: Two questions about compiler design david.waller1@blueyonder.co.uk (david.waller) (2004-02-04)
Re: Two questions about compiler design Jeffrey.Kenton@comcast.net (Jeff Kenton) (2004-02-04)
Re: Two questions about compiler design isaac@latveria.castledoom.org (Isaac) (2004-02-08)
Re: Two questions about compiler design peteg@cse.unsw.EDU.AU (Peter Gammie) (2004-02-12)
Re: Two questions about compiler design j.troeger@qut.edu.au (Jens Troeger) (2004-02-12)
Re: Two questions about compiler design samiam@moorecad.com (Scott Moore) (2004-02-12)
Re: Two questions about compiler design nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2004-02-13)
Re: Two questions about compiler design cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2004-02-27)
Re: Two questions about compiler design cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2004-03-06)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Jens Troeger <j.troeger@qut.edu.au>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 12 Feb 2004 11:28:59 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 04-02-030 04-02-071
Keywords: design, books
Posted-Date: 12 Feb 2004 11:28:59 EST

> > I've basically read most of the dragon book, and according to that book ...


> Try reading Cooper & Torczon's new book, Engineering A Compiler.
> It's much more up to date, and very practical.


I found Michael Scott's book "Programming Language Pragmatics" a great
read too. It's from 1999 (or is that already considered out-dated??)
and also addresses briefly different language paradigms. It goes the
whole way, chapter by chapter, from scanning to parsing, grammars and
IR's to code improvement and instruction selection.


Cheers,
Jens


Post a followup to this message

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