On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 09:32:10AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Joshua N Pritikin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 07:30:23PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I'd prefer us to tackle native code generation using C as the
> > > intermediate language instead of a JIT.
> >
> > Oh, yah. C is the obvious choice, but it doesn't have to be the only
> > backend. In theory we could also generate C#'s IL. Or C--.
>
> Help. I'm only halfway through the C-- paper, and I'm wondering:
> What is the status of implmentations? Why not implement it as
> extensions to existing C compilers?
Simon, can you comment?
--
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
(via, but not speaking for Deutsche Bank)
- Re: Stuff in core (was Re: date interfa... Nathan Torkington
- Re: Stuff in core (was Re: date in... Tim Bunce
- Re: C# (.NET) has no interpreters Joshua N Pritikin
- Re: C# (.NET) has no interpreters Ken Fox
- Re: C# (.NET) has no interpreters Kevin Scott
- Re: C# (.NET) has no interpreters Dan Sugalski
- Re: C# (.NET) has no interpreters John Tobey
- Re: C# (.NET) has no interpreters Ken Fox
- Re: C# (.NET) has no interpreters Joshua N Pritikin
- Re: C# (.NET) has no interpreters John Tobey
- Re: Stuff in core (was Re: date in... Joshua N Pritikin
- Re: Stuff in core (was Re: date interfa... Dan Sugalski
- Re: interpreter performance Joshua N Pritikin
- Re: Stuff in core (was Re: date in... Randy J. Ray
- opcodes (was Re: Stuff in core (wa... Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: Stuff in core (was Re: date in... Ken Fox
- Papers and reference works Dan Sugalski
- Re: Stuff in core (was Re: date in... Larry Wall
- Re: Stuff in core (was Re: date interface, on language (... Piers Cawley
