Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Re: Interpreter design gvmt@localhost.vsnl.net.in (Venkatesha Murthy) (2001-01-19) |
| RE: stack-based vs. register-based sjmccaug@bluestem.prairienet.org (Scott J. McCaughrin) (2001-01-26) |
| RE: stack-based vs. register-based sjmccaug@bluestem.prairienet.org (Scott J. McCaughrin) (2001-01-28) |
| From: | "Scott J. McCaughrin" <sjmccaug@bluestem.prairienet.org> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 26 Jan 2001 17:01:38 -0500 |
| Organization: | CNI/Prairienet |
| References: | 01-01-109 |
| Keywords: | architecture |
| Posted-Date: | 26 Jan 2001 17:01:37 EST |
The first complete Pascal compiler I wrote was targeted for a stack
machine, and it was a real pain after having written phases of other
compilers for non-stack targets.
The biggest drawback is the 0-operand mode of the stack architecture
vs. 2- or 3-operand mode with register operands. The LIFO nature of
the stack leads to much larger code generated, even after optimiza-
tion, than with registers.
Yes, it is true that being stack-based frees you from the pitfalls
of register-based code, but you also lose the advantages.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.