Compilers vs. Interpreters (WAS: Unsafe Optimizations)

David S. Harrison <davidh@dent.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
>[Some advantages of interpreters:
> * Develop testing while compiler under development.
> * Sanity check compare to compiled code (had better run on both).
> * Useful for debugging.]
>[Why don't most compiled languages also have an interpreter?]


There's more code to maintain, sometimes a large ammount of code.


Something that MIGHT be useful would be to write an instruction set
simulator for a simple (imaginary) architecture, and start by
retargeting your compiler to that. Then, only the ISA interpreter
has to be ported to get the system `up and running'.


Debuggers for interpreted code and debuggers for compiled code tend
to be different for various reasons. The approach above doesn't
address that.


;-D on ( Take my symbol table ... please ) Pardo
--
pardo@cs.washington.edu
        {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo
--

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