Re: Why Can't We Build a C Compiler?

In article <3099@ima.ima.isc.com>, nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes:
> This is the approach we've taken with the ML project. Standard ML is,
> to my knowledge, the only language to have a complete formal semantics ...
> (which is *not* huge - 97 pages). Does Ada have one? How big is it


In the upcoming ISO standard for Modula-2, VDM is used to define the semantics
[as well as the syntax]. This will increase the safety of compilers. In
England they are working on a system which will produce and prove a compiler
for a language specified in VDM [I think this is in connection with the
Alvey-project]. I expect that there is and will be serious work done on
proving Modula-2 programs, taking advantage of the fact that the language is
defined in VDM.


BTW, I think a VDM standard is on its way :-)


- Frode Odegard, M2CS
PS: I think the worst "hack" in the VDM definition of Modula-2
        is how continuity is handled in connection with coroutines.
        I heard that the VDM ";" combinator is being overloaded ;->
        I'm not sure this is really a "hack"....my VDM stinks.
[From Frode Odegard <frode@m2cs.naggum.se>]
--

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