Related articles |
---|
Contemplating writing first compiler... comments please. mch24@harvey27.demon.co.uk (1997-06-30) |
Re: Contemplating writing first compiler... comments please. gelleric@kafka.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de (1997-07-04) |
Re: Contemplating writing first compiler... comments please. cdw10@cix.compulink.co.uk (1997-07-08) |
Re: Contemplating writing first compiler... comments please. mrm1@msm.cam.ac.uk (1997-07-21) |
Re: Contemplating writing first compiler... comments please. HSauro@fssc.demon.co.uk (Herbert M Sauro) (1997-07-22) |
Re: Contemplating writing first compiler... comments please. pardo@cs.washington.edu (1997-07-29) |
Re: Contemplating writing first compiler... comments please. anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (1997-08-09) |
From: | gelleric@kafka.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de (Wolfgang Gellerich) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 4 Jul 1997 14:38:30 -0400 |
Organization: | Universität Stuttgart |
References: | 97-06-113 |
Keywords: | practice |
Hello Martin,
I think code generation will be a major problem in your project
because of all those little details you need to care about in order to
produce really executable .exe files. My suggestion is to generate a
symbolic intermediate code instead, and then have an interpreter
executing that code. Advantages are that it is much easies to generate
such a code, its easier to check its correctness and last not least
this approach is also used professionally: the UCSD Pascal, Modula-2
and Fortran implementations used this approach, and that idea has
recently been recycled for the implementation of Java (here in order
to get hardware- independent machine code).
For an idea of how such a code might look like, take a look into
"compiler construction" by Niklaus Wirth (by the way, I think that
those editions of that book which used Modula-2 as implementation
language are better then the current edition - my personal opinion
only...).
Hope that helps,
Wolfgang Gellerich
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.