This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Algol front end


> I believe that the amount of work needed to put either of them within the
> gcc framework is about the same. a68g has a transput implementation closer
> to that of the Revised Report on Algol68. ctrans uses the underlying C
> printf function. Neither implemented the book paradigm or formatted
> output, which is rather like having a C compiler without any printf
> functions or varargs. The parser would need to be interfaced to the new
> tree; something that is going to hamper attempts to bring gpc into the
> fold. Sothis is clearly not soemthing that will make 3.2.

I am amazed that anyone would even consider that this could "make 3.2".
There is a *lot* of work here. Ctrans is a starting point, but only that.
My students this last semester have been working on Algol-68S implementations
in the compiler class (the assignment was to write in Algol-68S, and generate
code for MMIX, and do a full bootstrap -- at least two students already
succeeded in completing the bootstrap :-)

Anyway, that's why I know quite a bit about Ctrans, since quite a few students
used Ctrans as the path to the bootstrap.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]