Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:10:15 12/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2002 at 09:29:40, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 21, 2002 at 23:47:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 21, 2002 at 21:20:26, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On December 21, 2002 at 17:45:43, Matt Taylor wrote: >>> >>>>On December 21, 2002 at 17:29:11, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 21, 2002 at 14:32:18, Matt Taylor wrote: >>>>> >>>>>checkout the compiler faq at : >>>>> >>>>>http://www.cs.strath.ac.uk/~hl/classes/52.358/FAQ/passes.html >>>>> >>>>>[off topic nonsense removed] >>>> >>>>Ok, the FAQ explains to me principles which were self-evident. When you read the >>>>FAQ, you realize that an optimizing single-pass C compiler is not possible. >>>> >>>>"Optimization: Only really possible with a multi-pass compiler" >>>> >>>>It also reaffirms what I'd already stated -- multi-pass compilers are EASIER to >>>>write because the code is more modular and has less coupling. Just about the >>>>only data structure that you're going to rely on to go between stages is the >>>>AST, and that's not that difficult. >>>> >>>>This is quite familiar for me as I've been working on a compiler implementation >>>>for a C-like language. (Actually it's more like C++, but it lacks multiple >>>>inheritance and templates.) >>>> >>>>-Matt >>> >>>If you have 'so much' experience with compilers, whereas i consider myself >>>a layman; i just wrote a few very very primitif compilers (and no assembly >>>output of them even); i wonder why you do not know what 'single pass >>>compiler' means. It has to do with how many times a compiler reads >>>the source code. Not so much how many high level optimizations >>>you apply to it. >>> >>>So now you learned again something. >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Vincent. >> >>No... _you_ have learned _nothing_. You are using a totally twisted definition >>of "single-pass". A pass is a pass over the program. Whether it be the source >>code, the intermediate output from pass 1 as is gone over by pass 2. Etc. >> >>Please read something _first_. >> >>I _have_ written compilers. I _have_ taught a compiler course multiple times. > >Then you should know clearly that there is a big difference between >the original compilers that perform simple tasks and the definitions >when applied to todays high level languages. There is _no_ difference. Compilers in 1970 behaved exactly as they behave today. The IBM fortran-H compiler of 1969 was every bit as good as compilers of today. It inlined. It did strength-reduction. It made multiple passes. So again, I have no idea what you are talking about.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.