Related articles |
---|
Is register stack compilers' friend? jaidi@technet.sg (1995-10-31) |
Re: Is register stack compilers' friend? hbaker@netcom.com (1995-11-04) |
Re: Is register stack compilers' friend? cliffc@ami.sps.mot.com (1995-11-05) |
Re: Is register stack compilers' friend? stevec@pact.srf.ac.uk (1995-11-06) |
Is register stack compilers' friend? dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1995-11-06) |
Re: Is register stack compilers' friend? paulb@pablo.taligent.com (1995-11-09) |
Re: Is register stack compilers' friend? jeremy@suede.sw.oz.au (1995-11-13) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
From: | jaidi@technet.sg (Nor Jaidi) |
Keywords: | architecture, question, comment |
Organization: | Compilers Central |
Date: | Tue, 31 Oct 1995 05:38:25 GMT |
After reading a book on Transputer architecture I got curious on how well
compilers generate code for it. Transputer is claimed to be a RISC but it is
rather unusual. Instead of having a large register file, it only has a few
registers organised into a stack. All those work on register optimisation
won't be applicable to transputer (I think).
I would like to hear from anyone having experience with writing compilers
for transputer. Register stack Vs large register file: which is better for
the compiler?
Nor Jaidi jaidi@technet.sg
[It's easy to generate straightforward code for a stack machine, since it's
basically just RPN. Optimizing is hard, since reusing values on a stack is
a lot trickier than reusing values in registers. -John]
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.