On Mar 13, 2007, at 2:18 AM, Peter P. wrote:

>> My university compiler class included only a tiny bit about code
>> generation, and most of that was aimed at a "theoretical" machine.
>
> The 'Dragon' book ('Compilers' - Aho, Sethi, Ullmann), which is
> supposedly about compiler writing (and a standard university text
> for that) is so abstract that one needs 2-3 additional books to
> be able to complete a simple compiler based on it.

That was our text.  Without the additional books.  I never did
complete the final project for that class (making it the only
class I ever flunked.  Not a requirement for EEs, though.)  Some
years later I realized that the one-line function compiler subroutine
I wrote as a fortran subroutine for playing with 3d-graphics might
have qualified as the final project, even if it didn't implement
the fancy recursive parsing.  It had actual code generation.

>
>> It's certainly possible that any given vendor has managed to figure
>>  out how to optimize embedded applications on

> I am not sure whether vendors are the manufacturers of the best
> compilers.  Vendors sell silicon first

Actually, I meant COMPILER vendors here...  There are compiler
vendors that specialized in compilers for microcontrollers (hi-tech
comes to mind) that may be off in useful directions WRT optimization
DIFFERENT than gcc, greenhill, and the other "big iron" compiler
vendors.

BillW
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist