Intermediate Representation

napi@rangkom.MY (Mohd Hanafiah b. Abdullah)
Tue, 07 Aug 90 15:34:07 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Intermediate Representation simon_google@mookstar.co.uk (2001-10-10)
Re: Intermediate Representation jbeniston@siroyan.com (Jon Beniston) (2001-10-12)
Re: Intermediate Representation vbdis@aol.com (2001-10-12)
Intermediate Representation napi@rangkom.MY (1990-08-07)
Re: Intermediate Representation briscoe-duke@CS.YALE.EDU (Duke Briscoe) (1990-08-08)
Re: Intermediate Representation preston@rice.edu (Preston Briggs) (1990-08-08)
Re: Intermediate Representation mod@westford.ccur.com (Michael O'Donnell (508)392-2915) (1990-08-09)
Re: Intermediate Representation grover@brahmand.Eng.Sun.COM (1990-08-09)
Re: Intermediate Representation preston@titan.rice.edu (1990-08-10)
Re: Intermediate Representation larus@primost.cs.wisc.edu (1990-08-12)
[18 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: napi@rangkom.MY (Mohd Hanafiah b. Abdullah)
Organization: MIMOS, Malaysia
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 90 15:34:07 GMT

I would like know what people think is the best Intermediate Representation
(IR) to be used for highly effective optimizations and code generation, and
it should be portable. An IR is one of the most crucial considerations in
designing a competent compiler.


Examples of IRs that I know:
(1) Abstract-syntax-tree (looks like Scheme code)
(2) DAG
(3) Three address code
(4) P-code
(5) Stanford's U-code


I'm more leaning towards "abstract-syntax-tree" since it is portable (machine
independent), readable, visibility of high-level structures (eg. loops) for
effective optimizations, language independent most of the time.


What do you think?


Please respond by email since I don't have online access to USENET
news. Thanks.


Hanafiah
[But copy your messages to compilers if they're of general interest,
please. -John]
--

Post a followup to this message

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