Re: Parallel compilers

Michael Parkes <mparks@oz.net>
5 Mar 1996 12:23:33 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Parallel compilers darkbard@gmail.com (Gabriele Farina) (2009-09-04)
Algol68 compiler ? news@chaos.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (1996-02-19)
Re: Algol68 compiler ? neitzel@gaertner.de (1996-02-23)
Parallel Algol68 compiler mac@coos.dartmouth.edu (1996-02-27)
Re: Parallel compilers mparks@oz.net (Michael Parkes) (1996-03-05)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Michael Parkes <mparks@oz.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 5 Mar 1996 12:23:33 -0500
Organization: Sense Networking Seattle (www.oz.net)
References: 96-02-236 96-02-290 96-02-325
Keywords: parallel, C

mac@coos.dartmouth.edu (Alex Colvin) wrote:
>
>Early Un*x compilers ran as a number of processes connected by pipes.
>Although this was largely due to address space limits, I suppose it
>might allow some overlap of analysis and I/O.
>
>Unfortunately, it looks like C requires that the lexer and declaration
>semantics be carefully synchronized, limiting the potential
>concurrency.


Alex,


I have worked on a tool that splits a compiler into a number of
processes linked by pipes and have tested the results. The speed up
is pretty good with the usual limits - the result runs as fast as the
slowest part and only scales to the number of passes (usually 4-6
passes).


It turns out that there is no *need* to synchronize the a 'C' lexer
with the parser and symantics it is just common practice as it makes
things somewhat easier when writing a compiler in a traditional manor.
However, using suitable tools the lexer can run as a free standing
process with no noticeable effects.


Regards,


Mike
--

Post a followup to this message

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