Re: Interpretable intermediate code design?

David Chase <>
14 Feb 1998 14:38:04 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Interpretable intermediate code design? (Joachim Durchholz) (1998-02-12)
Re: Interpretable intermediate code design? (David Chase) (1998-02-14)
Re: Interpretable intermediate code design? (Robert Trevellyan) (1998-02-14)
Re: Interpretable intermediate code design? (Alexander Kjeldaas) (1998-02-20)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: David Chase <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 14 Feb 1998 14:38:04 -0500
Organization: Natural Bridge LLC
References: 98-02-053
Keywords: interpreter, design

Joachim Durchholz wrote:

> I'm in need for an intermediate code format that's also usable as VM
> code. References to relevant design principles preferred, though
> existing designs are appreciated, too. I.e. I know the JVM format
> (roughly), but I don't know wether it's good or bad, and even if I
> knew I wouldn't know why and I wouldn't be able to improve on it.

I think the Martin Richards papers on BCPL and its portability are
good reading. INTCODE and OCODE make assumptions about stack growth
that are a little hard to port. There's some papers on ILOC that you
can find at Rice; I believe that ILOC has been used both as a compiled
and an interpreted intermediate language. The evolution of ILOC is
also something to consider, if you compare old and new versions of it
(all the papers were there last time I looked). Hennessy's group at
Stanford developed something called SUIF, I believe; I don't know how
it compares to the rest.
David Chase,

Post a followup to this message

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