Re: Language used to write compilers

nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
3 Jan 2005 00:52:18 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[7 earlier articles]
Re: Language used to write compilers samiam@moorecad.com (Scott Moore) (2004-12-31)
Re: Language used to write compilers Martin.Ward@durham.ac.uk (Martin Ward) (2004-12-31)
Re: Language used to write compilers nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2004-12-31)
Re: Language used to write compilers nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2004-12-31)
Re: Language used to write compilers idbaxter@semdesigns.com (Ira Baxter) (2004-12-31)
Re: Language used to write compilers Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com (Peter Flass) (2005-01-01)
Re: Language used to write compilers nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-01-03)
Re: Language used to write compilers napi@cs.indiana.edu (2005-01-03)
Re: Language used to write compilers vbdis@aol.com (2005-01-09)
Re: Language used to write compilers nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-01-12)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 3 Jan 2005 00:52:18 -0500
Organization: University of Cambridge, England
References: 04-12-148 04-12-172 04-12-174 05-01-005
Keywords: practice

Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>Martin Ward wrote:
>
>> I would put the efficiency of the generated code higher than the
>> efficiency of the compiler. Generally, more CPU cycles are spent
>> executing compiled code than on running the compiler (with the
>> possible exception of Gentoo Linux systems...)
>
>"It all depends"(tm). If you're writing a compiler for "production"
>use, then true. If you're writing something for an educational
>environment, than features like good diagnostics, speed of
>compilation, etc. are the chief goals, and execution speed is far down
>the list. The expectation is that a program in this environment will
>be compiled many times, executed (successfully) once, then never run
>again. PL/C is a good example of a compiler that did this very well.
>
>[It seems to me that even places that care about performance do vastly
>more compiling for debugging than for long runs, so even compilers
>with whizzo back end optimizations would benefit from better
>diagnostics. -John]


Indeed, yes. And they would benefit most of all for some diagnostics
that would help to track down the hard problems, such as those that
could be due to an ambiguity in the language standard, a subtle
programmer error or a bug in the compiler's optimisation.




Regards,
Nick Maclaren.



Post a followup to this message

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