Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text?

compilers@is-not-my.name
Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:11:50 -0000

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[37 earlier articles]
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? jthorn@astro.indiana.edu (Jonathan Thornburg) (2012-04-21)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? cr88192@hotmail.com (BGB) (2012-04-21)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name (2012-04-22)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name (2012-04-22)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? tk@ic.unicamp.br (Tomasz Kowaltowski) (2012-04-22)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? cr88192@hotmail.com (BGB) (2012-04-22)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name (2012-04-22)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2012-04-22)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? bc@freeuk.com (BartC) (2012-04-23)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name (2012-04-23)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? basile@starynkevitch.net (2012-05-02)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? johann@2ndquadrant.com (Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson) (2012-06-06)
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? sinu.nayak2001@gmail.com (Srinivas Nayak) (2012-06-16)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: compilers@is-not-my.name
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:11:50 -0000
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 12-04-056
Keywords: interpreter
Posted-Date: 22 Apr 2012 21:42:49 EDT

Uli Kusterer <ulimakesacompiler@nospam.googlemail.com> wrote:


> IMO if you know assembler or BASIC and general algorithms (i.e. you
> could implement a binary tree and walk its nodes), and you can somehow
> figure out what bytes your code gets compiled to (at worst by writing
> a dummy assembler program and looking at what bytes show up between a
> bunch of nop instructions whose bytes you know), you should be able to
> at least get a basic working knowledge of how a compiler works. Just
> write the naive approach of how you would design any program.


I have written a few interpreters and I thought about winging it but I
realize there is a science to compiling and there are right and wrong ways
to do things. I would like to do things the right way but maybe with my weak
background and broken undergrad CS degree that is expecting too much.


snip


> Is that un-computer-sciencey enough? This blog post may help with the basics
> of my code generation approach:
> http://orangejuiceliberationfront.com/generating-machine-code-at-runtime/ (but
> it's C, and Intel, and badly wrapped by the new theme of my blog).


Thanks, I found your comments very useful. Seems like a good summary.



Post a followup to this message

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