Re: Two pass compiler for a language similar to Java

Joan Pujol <joanpujol@gmail.com>
13 Sep 2004 12:29:52 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Two pass compiler for a language similar to Java joanpujol@gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Joan_Jes=FAs_Pujol_Espinar?=) (2004-09-03)
Re: Two pass compiler for a language similar to Java kamalp@acm.org (2004-09-07)
Re: Two pass compiler for a language similar to Java jjan@cs.rug.nl (J.H.Jongejan) (2004-09-08)
Re: Two pass compiler for a language similar to Java lhp+news@toft-hp.dk (Lasse =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hiller=F8e?= Petersen) (2004-09-13)
Re: Two pass compiler for a language similar to Java vidar@hokstad.name (2004-09-13)
Re: Two pass compiler for a language similar to Java joanpujol@gmail.com (Joan Pujol) (2004-09-13)
Re: Two pass compiler for a language similar to Java tzvetanmi@yahoo.com (2004-09-13)
Re: Two pass compiler for a language similar to Java kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) (2004-09-13)
Re: Two pass compiler for a language similar to Java kamalp@acm.org (2004-09-21)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Joan Pujol <joanpujol@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 13 Sep 2004 12:29:52 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 04-09-032 04-09-051
Keywords: practice
Posted-Date: 13 Sep 2004 12:29:52 EDT

> If you want an interpreter -it makes sense to go in for a 1-pass
> compiler. Else, 2-pass is what one would use.


I don't understand it. The language is the same if I interpret it or
if I compile it, isn't it? You want to say that If I want to write an
interpreter it's better to have a semantics that can be done in one
pass? Or I'm missing something?


A lot of thanks in advance,
[I don't get it either, unless the idea is that the interpreter is unlikely
to need as much type info known in advance as compiled code. -John]

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.