Re: Number of compiler passes

Michiel <m.helvensteijn@gmail.com>
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:26:44 +0200

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Number of compiler passes m.helvensteijn@gmail.com (Michiel) (2008-07-21)
Re: Number of compiler passes gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2008-07-21)
Re: Number of compiler passes gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2008-07-21)
Re: Number of compiler passes m.helvensteijn@gmail.com (Michiel) (2008-07-22)
Re: Number of compiler passes dwashington@gmx.net (Denis Washington) (2008-07-25)
Re: Number of compiler passes m.helvensteijn@gmail.com (Michiel) (2008-07-25)
Re: Number of compiler passes gneuner2/@/comcast.net (George Neuner) (2008-07-25)
Re: Number of compiler passes m.helvensteijn@gmail.com (Michiel) (2008-07-26)
Re: Number of compiler passes gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2008-07-27)
Re: Number of compiler passes gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2008-07-28)
Re: Number of compiler passes gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2008-07-28)
Re: Number of compiler passes gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2008-07-29)
[7 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Michiel <m.helvensteijn@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:26:44 +0200
Organization: Wanadoo
References: 08-07-041 08-07-044 08-07-048 08-07-055
Keywords: design
Posted-Date: 26 Jul 2008 05:31:52 EDT

> Out of pure curiosity: what kind of language are you trying to develop?
> What are you planning to do with it? That would interest me.


I have already answered you by mail, but I'll repeat it for the group
(minus the question about your own language):


It's a language I'm designing and implementing with a colleague for
our Masters degree in Computer Science. On the surface it's just an
imperative language with some nice tricks (like the nested
functions). But we're using it primarily for research on automatic
correctness proving.


The language has a special syntax for function preconditions,
postconditions and invariants. The hope is that most of these
assertions can be proved at compile time. This framework would also
clear the way for a lot of new compiler optimizations. It also has
other benefits.


That's its most important feature. As a part of my research I hope to
add new paradigms (OOP, functional) to the language one by one as long
as they can still be supported by this framework.


By the way, I'm still not sure what to name the language. Any ideas?


--
Michiel Helvensteijn


Post a followup to this message

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