Re: Q: Intermediate code for interpreting & compiling?

zmola@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Carl Zmola) writes:
|> If you want to get it up and going fast, I would suggest using a subset
|> of an existing language. For the stack based system you could use Forth
|> ( now that there is an ANS standard, it should be quite portable) and for
|> a lisp like notation I would use Scheme or a subset of Scheme.
|>
|> While I like forth, scheme might be a better choice since there is a lot of
|> literature on how to optimize it.


For Forth there is also some literature:


@InProceedings{ertl92,
    author = "M. Anton Ertl",
    title = "A New Approach to {Forth} Native Code Generation",
    crossref = "euroforth92",
    pages = "73--78"
}


@Proceedings{euroforth92,
    key = "EuroForth~'92",
    title = "EuroForth~'92",
    booktitle = "EuroForth~'92",
    year = "1992",
    organization = "MicroProcessor Engineering",
    address = "Southampton, England"
}


Forth (or, in general, any language with programmer-visible stacks) is
converted into standard representations for optimization and code
generation, like SSA form and data flow graphs.


This paper is available at


ftp://ftp.complang.tuwien.ac.at/pub/papers/ertl92.ps.Z


- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
--

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