Related articles |
---|
Compilers for ultra-compact byte code? phr@netcom.com (1996-02-09) |
Re: Compilers for ultra-compact byte code? koopman@cs.cmu.edu (1996-02-13) |
Re: Compilers for ultra-compact byte code? cliffc@ami.sps.mot.com (1996-02-13) |
Re: Compilers for ultra-compact byte code? taj@vanbc.wimsey.com (1996-02-16) |
Re: Compilers for ultra-compact byte code? maatwerk@euronet.nl (1996-02-16) |
Re: Compilers for ultra-compact byte code? hbaker@netcom.com (1996-02-17) |
Re: Compilers for ultra-compact byte code? cdg@nullstone.com (1996-02-17) |
Re: Compilers for ultra-compact byte code? todd@cs.arizona.edu (1996-02-18) |
From: | maatwerk@euronet.nl (M.M. van der Laan) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 16 Feb 1996 23:50:24 -0500 |
Organization: | Euronet Internet |
References: | 96-02-096 |
Keywords: | interpreter |
phr@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
>I'm wondering what languages and compilers are available for
>implementing programs with the idea of using an absolute minimum
>amount of output code space. The idea is to compile to some byte-code
>format which would then be interpreted at runtime. My intended target
>machines are 8-bit microcontrollers with very limited program and data
>memory.
We are working on a compiler that produces very compact bytecode.
Some tests have indicated a compression ratio of 90% on C++-like code.
Our runtime doesn't interpret the code, but generates machine language
before it executes. This 'post-compilation' method is faster than
interpretation, especially for loops. And because postcompiling is
only done for modules currently executing, a program uses less memory.
You might use a similar method for microcontrollers. In fact, we
thought about it ourselves. However, the problem is the size of the
interpreter. So in our view there is not much to gain.
Regards, Mauk van der Laan
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.