Hi! On Thu 24 Jan 2013 14:50, Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com> writes:
> Thanks for the review! There has actually been more progress since I > pushed that branch. I hit a point in the CPS->RTL stuff where I had > trouble because I didn't know how to do things (like mutable variables) > in RTL. So I've actually ported the compiler to GLIL in a branch on my > computer. I also have a working Tree-IL->CPS compiler for some of > Tree-IL (it's not done yet). > > I thought that might be a better way forward because CPS and RTL are, to > a certain extent, separate ideas. Cool, please push so we can see. Honestly I think RTL and CPS go together very well. CPS is all about giving a name to everything, but that can be inefficient in a stack VM, because referencing and updating named variables requires separate push and pop instructions. RTL makes this easy and cheap. Regarding mutable variables: we probably still need to box them in general because of call/cc. There are cases in which they can be unboxed, but I think that store-to-load forwarding with DCE can probably recover many of those cases. Dunno. I would box them as part of an assignment conversion pass. > I realize it might be confusing to start with CPS->RTL, then switch to > CPS->GLIL, then switch back later when the RTL branch is ready. If you'd > rather do it that way, we can skip the CPS->GLIL phase. Personally I would prefer to target RTL. But that is a personal opinion :) Cheers, and happy hacking :) Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
