|Modularize compiler construction? email@example.com (Peng Yu) (2010-01-23)|
|Re: Modularize compiler construction? firstname.lastname@example.org (Kaz Kylheku) (2010-01-24)|
|Re: Modularize compiler construction? email@example.com (BGB / cr88192) (2010-01-24)|
|Re: Modularize compiler construction? firstname.lastname@example.org (cr88192) (2010-01-25)|
|Re: Modularize compiler construction? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2010-01-25)|
|Re: Modularize compiler construction? email@example.com (Peng Yu) (2010-01-25)|
|Re: Modularize compiler construction? firstname.lastname@example.org (Ira Baxter) (2010-01-28)|
|Re: Modularize compiler construction? email@example.com (George Neuner) (2010-01-28)|
|[4 later articles]|
|From:||Kaz Kylheku <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:18:40 +0000 (UTC)|
|Organization:||A noiseless patient Spider|
|Posted-Date:||25 Jan 2010 00:28:55 EST|
On 2010-01-23, Peng Yu <email@example.com> wrote:
> It seems that the current compiler construction tools (at least in
> bison and flex) are still very primitive. Let's take the following
> example to explain what I mean.
bison and flex are not tools for /complete/ compiler construction.
> easily composing different modules. It seems that there is a great
> semantic gap between what bison & flex offer and what compiler design
The gap between what you think a tool should do and what it does is
not a ``semantic gap''.
A word processor isn't a first-person shooter video game. If you
expect a word processor to be such a game, that doesn't mean there is
a ``semantic gap'' beween word processors and video games, only that
you have an unrealistic expectation.
Bison does not provide the semantics of translation, only a way to
build a parser, which is far, far from a complete translation scheme.
It can be argued that a parser-generation tool /should/ only do that
one job. A more complete compiler construction suite would still have
a parser generator tool inside it which does only parser generation.
The GNU project does have a much more complete compiler construction
suite: it's called the GNU Compiler Collection (perhaps you've heard
of it). In this suite you can write a new language as a front end
module, which re-uses the posterior modules.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.