Re: Is Assembler Language essential in compiler construction?

Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com>
Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:07:59 +0100

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[15 earlier articles]
Re: Is Assembler Language essential in compiler construction? walter@bytecraft.com (Walter Banks) (2009-02-14)
Re: Is Assembler Language essential in compiler construction? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2009-02-14)
Re: Is Assembler Language essential in compiler construction? ArarghMail902@Arargh.com (2009-02-14)
Re: Is Assembler Language essential in compiler construction? cr88192@hotmail.com (cr88192) (2009-02-16)
Re: Is Assembler Language essential in compiler construction? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2009-02-16)
Re: Is Assembler Language essential in compiler construction? cr88192@hotmail.com (cr88192) (2009-02-18)
Re: Is Assembler Language essential in compiler construction? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2009-02-19)
Re: VM as target, was Is Assembler Language essential cr88192@hotmail.com (cr88192) (2009-02-21)
Re: VM as target, was Is Assembler Language essential gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2009-02-21)
Re: VM as target, was Is Assembler Language essential cr88192@hotmail.com (cr88192) (2009-02-23)
Re: VM as target, was Is Assembler Language essential gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2009-02-24)
Re: VM as target, was Is Assembler Language essential cr88192@hotmail.com (cr88192) (2009-02-25)
Re: Is Assembler Language essential in compiler construction? toby@telegraphics.com.au (toby) (2009-02-25)
[9 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:07:59 +0100
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 09-02-021 09-02-037 09-02-076 09-02-082 09-02-089
Keywords: assembler, VM
Posted-Date: 19 Feb 2009 11:23:35 EST

cr88192 schrieb:


> now, in my "trying to be overly ambitious" thing, I am trying to
> make my VM accept both Java Bytecode and .NET/CIL (as well as
> continuing on with what it does already, namely, serving as a
> dynamic C compiler).


The machines may be incompatible, with regards to e.g. garbage
collection. Also existing code may rely on the VM specific standard
libraries, with possibly differing implementations of classes or
methods of the same signature. You may have to extend the namespaces
by the name of the IL, in order to prevent such cases, and you may
have to supply the "standard" libraries - where "standard" means a
hell of incompatible .NET versions :-(


DoDi


Post a followup to this message

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