Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| machine code vs. byte codes jamess1@wwnet.com (Mark) (1999-03-28) |
| Re: machine code vs. byte codes ftu@fi.ruu.nl (1999-04-01) |
| Re: machine code vs. byte codes sdm7g@elvis.med.virginia.edu (Steven D. Majewski) (1999-04-03) |
| From: | ftu@fi.ruu.nl (Dick Wesseling) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 1 Apr 1999 00:54:21 -0500 |
| Organization: | Casema Internet |
| References: | 99-03-111 |
| Keywords: | code, performance |
Mark <jamess1@wwnet.com> writes:
> Hello,
> I'm working a compiler that compiles a very simple C-like language.
> For the most part the source code will be compiled to byte codes and
> interpreted, however certain parts can be compiled to machine code.
In that case you can mix byte code and machine code. Just use one byte
code to escape to inline machine code where appropriate. When the
inline code returns to the byte code interpreter it must inform the
interpreter of the new byte code Instruction Pointer. This can be
implemented by a Jump SubRoutine back to the interpreter at the end of
the inline code. The return address of the JSR will identify the new
IP.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.