>>>>> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SC> On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 04:51:24PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> only perl op calls in machine code
SC> I can't make this make any sense. Could you try again?
well, you should have been on the lists when this was being hammered
around. basically the emitted machine code for TIL is very simplified C
routine calls and their argument setup and return. all the routine calls
are to perl ops with just the minimal stack glue code in between them.
this was called threaded code in the old days and some compilers
generated that as it made code generation very simple. you don't have to
generate all the code for each possible op and deal with the full set of
machine instructions. TIL is slower than fully compiled code but is
should be faster than fully interpreted code if done correctly. also the
code generator can be created very quickly and could even be
partly/fully table driven for each backend architecture.
other benefits are it will just plugin to the replaceable back end dan
is fancying. adding new architectures should be not too difficult once a
few are done. this can be done later on after other compiler parts are
in place and stable.
most agreed TIL is a worthwhile goal but not the highest priority. as
long as clean hooks are there for backend plugins and the perl op api is
very simple and clean, generating TIL will not be too difficult. when
there arises an itch for more speed and compiling to an architecture is
useful, TIL will be the scratcher.
uri
--
Uri Guttman --------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------- http://www.sysarch.com
SYStems ARCHitecture, Software Engineering, Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting
The Perl Books Page ----------- http://www.sysarch.com/cgi-bin/perl_books
The Best Search Engine on the Net ---------- http://www.northernlight.com
