Related articles |
---|
Precedence values for Reverse Polish nerd@freeuk.com (Nerd) (1999-10-27) |
Re: Precedence values for Reverse Polish cbrtjr@ix.netcom.com (Charles E. Bortle, Jr.) (1999-10-29) |
Re: Precedence values for Reverse Polish lex@cc.gatech.edu (1999-10-31) |
Re: Precedence values for Reverse Polish ppaatt@aol.com (1999-10-31) |
Re: Precedence values for Reverse Polish nerd@freeuk.com (Nerd) (1999-10-31) |
Re: Precedence values for Reverse Polish anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (1999-11-02) |
Re: Precedence values for Reverse Polish ppaatt@aol.com (1999-11-02) |
Re: Precedence values for Reverse Polish anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (1999-11-03) |
Re: Precedence values for Reverse Polish ppaatt@aol.com (1999-11-05) |
Re: Precedence values for Reverse Polish anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (1999-11-18) |
Re: Precedence values for Reverse Polish world!bobduff@uunet.uu.net (Robert A Duff) (1999-11-25) |
From: | "Nerd" <nerd@freeuk.com> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 31 Oct 1999 23:59:42 -0500 |
Organization: | Compilers Central |
References: | 99-10-124 99-10-190 |
Keywords: | parse |
Well actually it's a compiler not an interpreter, so I can backpatch it.
Actually, since I wrote that first message I've already got
"BEGIN...END" compound statements, and a full structure of the "IF"
that I wrote. It doesn't quite work, but it's getting there.
On the subject of compilers, what kind of simple optimisation could I
get it to do? It outputs assembly code for me to optimise anyway, so
only simple, easy stuff (efficient use of registers, etc...) is needed
because I do a lot by hand (although you may well ask why have a
compiler in the first place!!!)
--
Paul Evans
Paul_Evans@denbigh.net (school)
nerd@freeuk.com (home)
ICQ number: 4135350
<lex@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:99-10-190@comp.compilers...
> [ various RPN tricks ]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.