|CIL question email@example.com (Stefan Mandel) (2006-01-19)|
|Re: CIL question firstname.lastname@example.org (Paolo Molaro) (2006-01-20)|
|Re: CIL question DrDiettrich@compuserve.de (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-01-20)|
|Re: CIL question email@example.com (Stefan Mandel) (2006-01-26)|
|Re: CIL question firstname.lastname@example.org (2006-01-28)|
|Re: CIL question email@example.com (Paolo Molaro) (2006-01-28)|
|Re: CIL question DrDiettrich@compuserve.de (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-01-28)|
|[1 later articles]|
|From:||Stefan Mandel <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||19 Jan 2006 23:15:41 -0500|
|Organization:||Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (http://www.fraunhofer.de/)|
|Posted-Date:||19 Jan 2006 23:15:41 EST|
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?
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.