Re: PCODE Interpereters 101

"Kevin B. Smith" <kevin.b.smith@intel.com>
15 Feb 1999 23:24:12 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[2 earlier articles]
Re: PCODE Interpereters 101 sda@rt66.com (1999-01-31)
Re: PCODE Interpereters 101 tgl@netcom.com (Tom Lane) (1999-02-03)
Re: PCODE Interpereters 101 sda@rt66.com (1999-02-05)
Re: PCODE Interpereters 101 gneuner@dyn.com (1999-02-05)
Re: PCODE Interpereters 101 cfc@world.std.com (Chris F Clark) (1999-02-10)
Re: PCODE Interpereters 101 sam@cogent.ca (Sam Roberts) (1999-02-12)
Re: PCODE Interpereters 101 kevin.b.smith@intel.com (Kevin B. Smith) (1999-02-15)
Re: PCODE Interpereters 101 cfc@world.std.com (Chris F Clark) (1999-02-15)
Re: PCODE Interpereters 101 toring@inet.uni2.dk (Torben Ring) (1999-02-18)
Re: PCODE Interpereters 101 aduncan@cs.ucsb.edu (aduncan) (1999-02-21)
Re: PCODE Interpereters 101 albaugh@agames.com (1999-02-24)
Re: PCODE Interpereters 101 Scott.Daniels@Acm.Org (Scott.David.Daniels) (1999-03-02)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Kevin B. Smith" <kevin.b.smith@intel.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 15 Feb 1999 23:24:12 -0500
Organization: Intel Corporation
References: 99-01-079 99-01-117 99-02-008 99-02-019 99-02-050
Keywords: interpreter

This thread has been pretty interesting. However, one thing that I
think needs to be added is that a display is only a compiler created
data structure that essentially eliminates the redundant pointer
chasing that occurs with the static-link method.


Therefore, it seems like the ideal method is to simply use
static-links, since they are very simple to implement correctly. Type
the static-links as a const pointer.


Then if your memory disambiguation and common subexpression
elimination/partial redundancy elimination are up to snuff, these
remove any redundancy involved with multiple up-level references.


Kevin B. Smith
kevin.b.smith@intel.com

Post a followup to this message

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