Am 30.09.2010 02:38, schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich: > Florian Klämpfl schrieb: > >>> In the past months I've been working on several aspects of such >>> refactoring: >>> - moving global variables into objects (mainly current_module) >>> - turning back-ends into classes >> >> The fpc back end is completly OOP? > > To some degree. Basic data types are hard coded,
True, not every type is a class in Object Pascal. > and prevent the use of > multiple back-ends in one binary. ... which has no use. > >>> - separation of parser (front-end) from AST processing (building AST, >>> optimization, code generation) >> >> I fear that this will make the code even more fragile because the code >> gets spread among more locations. > > It's a matter of the related interfaces/APIs. > >>> When we agree to turn the current codebase into such an OO approach, >>> eventually adding documentation, the maintenance could be simplified a >>> lot. >> >> We had for 1.0 a rather complete documentation. However, it outdated too >> quick and it didn't simplify maintainance in any way. > > That's because the implementation didn't follow the documentation. A > strict OO design can be implemented according to the documentation. Yes, in an ideal world with endless resources. > >>> During my experiments I've learned how fragile the current state of >>> the compiler codebase is - even a minor change can have inpredictable >>> consequences in other parts of the code. >> >> This won't change. A compiler is simply something very interwinded. Your >> problems with cyclic unit dependencies prove it. > > These problems only prove poor coding conventions. When speed is favored > over stability and flexibility, Indeed, currently people complain more about FPC's speed than about it's stability. > > >> While I agree that we should refactor parts of the compiler, it should >> be done in an evolutionary way. Don't forget, work on 2.0 took 6 years. > > And the results of that work are not really pleasing :-( Really? Show me any *production* compiler which can be ported with a few thousand lines of code to another architecture. The FPC backend is one of the best written production compiler back ends I know. > It's patchwork in many parts, that destabilized the legacy code. Well, you didn't come up with clean fixes yet either :) _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
