|Modularize compiler construction? firstname.lastname@example.org (Peng Yu) (2010-01-23)|
|Re: Modularize compiler construction? email@example.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2010-01-24)|
|Re: Modularize compiler construction? firstname.lastname@example.org (BGB / cr88192) (2010-01-24)|
|Re: Modularize compiler construction? email@example.com (cr88192) (2010-01-25)|
|Re: Modularize compiler construction? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2010-01-25)|
|Re: Modularize compiler construction? firstname.lastname@example.org (Peng Yu) (2010-01-25)|
|Re: Modularize compiler construction? email@example.com (Ira Baxter) (2010-01-28)|
|[5 later articles]|
|From:||Peng Yu <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:10:38 -0600|
|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
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
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.