Modularize compiler construction?

Peng Yu <pengyu.ut@gmail.com>
Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:10:38 -0600

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Modularize compiler construction? pengyu.ut@gmail.com (Peng Yu) (2010-01-23)
Re: Modularize compiler construction? kkylheku@gmail.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2010-01-24)
Re: Modularize compiler construction? cr88192@hotmail.com (BGB / cr88192) (2010-01-24)
Re: Modularize compiler construction? cr88192@hotmail.com (cr88192) (2010-01-25)
Re: Modularize compiler construction? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2010-01-25)
Re: Modularize compiler construction? pengyu.ut@gmail.com (Peng Yu) (2010-01-25)
Re: Modularize compiler construction? idbaxter@semdesigns.com (Ira Baxter) (2010-01-28)
[5 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Peng Yu <pengyu.ut@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:10:38 -0600
Organization: Compilers Central
Keywords: tools
Posted-Date: 24 Jan 2010 12:18:46 EST

It seems that the current compiler construction tools (at least in
bison and flex) are still very primitive. Let's take the following
example to explain what I mean.


In the following book, let's say, section 6.1, mentioned various
aspects of expression evaluation among many languages. If I want to
construct a new language and its compiler by using a variety of
features (e.g, whether to do expression arrangement or not as
mentioned in 6.1.4) in these aspects, I don't see how to do so by
easily composing different modules. It seems that there is a great
semantic gap between what bison & flex offer and what compiler design
need.


http://www.cs.rochester.edu/u/scott/pragmatics/3e/toc.shtml


I'm wondering if there are any on going research on this topic.
[In fairness, bison and flex are based on designs from the 1970s.
There's plenty of newer tools available to anyone who looks for
them. -John]


Post a followup to this message

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