Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| From: | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Mon, 29 Aug 2016 13:15:49 -0400 |
| Organization: | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| References: | 16-08-007 16-08-008 |
| Injection-Info: | miucha.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="25071"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | translator |
| Posted-Date: | 29 Aug 2016 15:00:09 EDT |
On 2016-08-26 3:54 PM, rockbrentwood@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:17:46 AM UTC-5, Alexandre wrote:
>> Btw, at now, is just a experimental project, it's not build every
>> C program...
> A really good source-to-source compiler should also be making proper
> adjustments to the comments. That may even entail a degree of natural
> language processing! Except for the "may" part.
I have done a few source to source asm compilers that include retaining
the original comments and sources.
What I did was rewrote the asm back-end to emit simple C statements and
then compiling these to the new target processor. For real life
applications it is an 85% solution. It gets the machine code correct for
the target processor but there are I/O code that is so architectural
specific that it needs to be hand translated.
The interesting part is the code transformation part works really well.
To the extent that generated code is often smaller because most C
compilers do very well with small statements and using C as an
intermediate form isolates most of the processor specific processor issues.
w..
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.