Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Intermediate language ?? jimp@powersite.net (Jim Prince) (1999-04-09) |
| Re: Intermediate language ?? eodell@pobox.com (1999-04-10) |
| From: | eodell@pobox.com (Eric O'Dell) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 10 Apr 1999 18:14:33 -0400 |
| Organization: | @Home Network |
| References: | 99-04-033 |
| Keywords: | interpreter, design |
On 9 Apr 1999 14:02:35 -0400, "Jim Prince" <jimp@powersite.net> wrote:
>I am having a conceptual problem with defining an intermediate language.
>What are the pros and cons of a virtual machine ?
The main advantage of using an intermediate language is that it
becomes easier to write new back ends for different target
architectures. The drawback is that you tend to lose some efficiency
in the generated code. What kind of intermediate language you use can
have a profound effect on how easy it is to perform certain kinds of
optimizations.
>Should I use the assembly language of the target processor ?
Only if you don't mind locking yourself into that architecture, which
may or may not be a problem for you. I would recommend against it
simply because it may make it more difficult to implement
optimizations. You should, however, be able to get good results by
designing an intermediate language that is tightly coupled (albeit at
a higher level) with the target instruction set.
-E.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.