> > Um.  Maybe.  Too often compilers are written by compiler 
> experts who 
> > AREN'T experts in the assembly language of the target 
> processor.  My 
> > university compiler class included only a tiny bit about code 
> > generation, and most of that was aimed at a "theoretical" 
> machine.  (I 
> > wasn't very impressed, being an assembly programmer at the time.)
> 
> 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. The 'Interpretation of Computer Languages' 
> (Abelman etc - the LISP book) has a similar problem, 
> excepting for the fact that LISP is interpreted so there is a 
> little bit of code to work with. University does not teach 
> practical things (notice that I do not have a degree ...). 

Best I've seen was 
http://compilers.iecc.com/crenshaw/ I REALLY enjoyed reading that. Wish I
had seen it years earlier.

---
James.
 

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