At 06:24 PM 8/24/00 -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Having a solid and correct reference doc for the output bytecode is
> > probably the single most helpful thing we can do for folks writing things
> > that munch the bytecode.
>
>Actually, I don't think that munching Perl bytecode into Java bytecode is
>the best approach. I tried going from B:: (which is effectively an IR,
>albeit a problematic one) to Java bytecode directly, and that was full of
>problems, because it required doing too much by hand. I have had to scrap
>that approach.
I've been sort of working under the assumption that the bytecode will be
perl's IR, or one of 'em at least. (I expect we'll have no fewer than
two--the bytecode and the parsed version of the program)
>This is why I want such a clearly defined API for the IR and for any
>internal data structures used by the IR---I'd like to write a backend that
>morphs the Perl IR into the "Java IR" to generate JVM bytecode.
>
>Dan, does that fit with your thinking?
Yup. When things get closer we'll have a bytecode/IR WG going to hash these
things out properly.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
