Re: Source-to-source transformation: best approach?

Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com>
Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:26:17 +0200

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Source-to-source transformation: best approach? somedeveloper@gmail.com (SomeDeveloper) (2007-08-04)
Re: Source-to-source transformation: best approach? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-08-07)
Re: Source-to-source transformation: best approach? Meyer-Eltz@t-online.de (Detlef Meyer-Eltz) (2007-08-11)
Re: Source-to-source transformation: best approach? idbaxter@semdesigns.com (2007-08-11)
Re: Source-to-source transformation: best approach? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2007-08-12)
Re: Source-to-source transformation: best approach? cordy@cs.queensu.ca (Jim Cordy) (2007-08-14)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:26:17 +0200
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 07-08-013
Keywords: translator

SomeDeveloper wrote:


> [The main advantage of TXL is that it has a lot of I/O and tree
> building as part of the languge, whereas you have to implement
> them yourself if you used a yacc parser. -John]


Right. The determination and modeling of the semantical structure
(AST...), and the transformation of that structure, are different tasks,
which in traditional approaches require different programming languages
or libraries. IMO it's a big advantage, to have everything in a single
language. It's less important when very different techniques are
required, like in general-purpose multi-target compilers, which can be
separated into multiple, widely independent phases.


DoDi



Post a followup to this message

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