Re: Translator design decisions

Ken Rose <rose@acm.org>
Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:24:13 -0800

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Translator design decisions msuvajac@sfsb.hr (Mario Suvajac) (2008-01-19)
Re: Translator design decisions DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2008-01-20)
Re: Translator design decisions cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2008-01-21)
Re: Translator design decisions dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) (2008-01-22)
Re: Translator design decisions rose@acm.org (Ken Rose) (2008-01-22)
Re: Translator design decisions cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2008-01-23)
Re: Translator design decisions pertti.kellomaki@tut.fi (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pertti_Kellom=E4ki?=) (2008-01-23)
Re: Translator design decisions DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2008-01-23)
Re: Translator design decisions idbaxter@semdesigns.com (2008-01-26)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Ken Rose <rose@acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:24:13 -0800
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
References: 08-01-050 08-01-054 08-01-062
Keywords: UNCOL
Posted-Date: 22 Jan 2008 22:40:26 EST

Tony Finch wrote:
>> Heard from ANDF lately?
>
> I got the impression it died through lack of interest from DERA/QinetiQ
> and the OSF, not because of technical failure.
>
> Of course, now there's LLVM.


I've long wondered why UNCOL is such a problem, when just about any
assembly language you could name is capable of supporting any
programming language, limited only, it seems, by address space and the
size of the runtime system.


Any ideas? Is it just further translation that's the problem?


Thanks


    - ken
[One source language and multiple backends is doable, as is multiple
source languages and one backend, which is what you're describing.
Heat death ensues when you try to do multi to multi. -John]


Post a followup to this message

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