CIL question

Stefan Mandel <stefan.mandel@iese.fraunhofer.de>
19 Jan 2006 23:15:41 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
CIL question stefan.mandel@iese.fraunhofer.de (Stefan Mandel) (2006-01-19)
Re: CIL question lupus@debian.org (Paolo Molaro) (2006-01-20)
Re: CIL question DrDiettrich@compuserve.de (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-01-20)
Re: CIL question stefan.mandel@iese.fraunhofer.de (Stefan Mandel) (2006-01-26)
Re: CIL question anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2006-01-28)
Re: CIL question lupus@debian.org (Paolo Molaro) (2006-01-28)
Re: CIL question DrDiettrich@compuserve.de (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-01-28)
[1 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Stefan Mandel <stefan.mandel@iese.fraunhofer.de>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 19 Jan 2006 23:15:41 -0500
Organization: Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (http://www.fraunhofer.de/)
Keywords: question
Posted-Date: 19 Jan 2006 23:15:41 EST

Hello,


I have a question to the Microsoft Intermediate language for the .NET
framework. The specification of this language says, that it must be
compiled and not be interpreted. Seems quite odd to me - who cares how
this language is handled from a virtual machine?


However, is there any reason that they implemented .NET-CIL as a stack
based language? Wouldn't it have been easier to produce register code
with an infinite number of registers?


They need this (register based) representation anyway if they want to
optimize the program. And if they explicitly disallow interpretation,
there is no need for stack representation at all.


Or am I misleaded about the nature of CIL?


Regards,


Stefan

Post a followup to this message

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