Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.compilers > #571
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.compilers |
| Subject | Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? |
| Date | 2012-04-18 22:43 +0000 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <12-04-028@comp.compilers> (permalink) |
| References | <12-04-019@comp.compilers> <12-04-024@comp.compilers> |
Derek M. Jones <derek@knosof.co.uk> wrote: > On 17/04/2012 22:28, compilers@is-not-my.name wrote: >> Guys, I'm having a bear of a time finding a good practical language >> and OS agnostic text on writing a compiler. I'm weak in math and not >> interested in the theoretical details. I want to understand the hows >> and whys of compiler writing. > I always recommend: > A Retargetable C Compiler: Design and Implementation > by David R. Hanson and Christopher W. Fraser So, that makes two (out of about five) of us. (My post comes later.) Much of the book is about code generation, which, it seems to me, is not described in as much detail in many other compiler books. Parsing theory is where much of the theory, and hard to understand mathematical descriptions, appear, but in the end (back end, in the case of compilers) it is about code generations. As far as languages to write compilers in, it is now usual (though maybe not 50 years ago) to describe parts of the compiler in a special purpose language. As previously noted, there are flex and bison to write the front end, though you usually need to know some C to use them. For compilers that generate code for more than one target, (at least gcc and lcc), the back end is usually described through a language easier for humans to understand. To me, the lcc code generator is much easier to understand than that of gcc. You should be able to write a description for a new target without knowing C, or much of parsing theory. You do need a good understanding of the instruction set for the target, though. -- glen
Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name - 2012-04-17 21:28 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? Philip Herron <redbrain@gcc.gnu.org> - 2012-04-18 14:25 +0100
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name - 2012-04-19 16:32 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2012-04-20 03:58 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name - 2012-04-22 10:10 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-04-20 09:45 +0100
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? "Jonathan Thornburg" <jthorn@astro.indiana.edu> - 2012-04-21 15:04 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-18 08:39 -0700
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name - 2012-04-19 17:32 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? Alain Ketterlin <alain@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> - 2012-04-18 18:24 +0200
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2012-04-19 13:53 +0200
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name - 2012-04-21 03:07 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-04-21 12:01 +0100
Re: code quality, was Good practical language and OS agnostic text? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2012-04-22 12:41 +0200
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name - 2012-04-19 11:31 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? "Jonathan Thornburg" <jthorn@astro.indiana.edu> - 2012-04-20 16:19 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? "Derek M. Jones" <derek@knosof.co.uk> - 2012-04-18 18:16 +0100
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-18 22:43 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-19 00:05 -0700
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name - 2012-04-19 11:31 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name - 2012-04-19 16:32 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name - 2012-04-18 19:30 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-04-19 18:43 +0100
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-18 20:29 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2012-04-19 14:20 +0200
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name - 2012-04-19 19:05 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? Uli Kusterer <ulimakesacompiler@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-21 11:30 +0200
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2012-04-18 22:00 -0400
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name - 2012-04-19 11:31 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-20 07:02 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name - 2012-04-22 11:10 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-04-22 23:56 +0000
Re: PL/360, was Good practical language and OS agnostic text? ArarghMail204@Arargh.com - 2012-04-24 19:13 -0500
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? Bakul Shah <usenet@bitblocks.com> - 2012-04-18 21:15 -0700
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name - 2012-04-20 16:06 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? torbenm@diku.dk (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) - 2012-04-19 14:58 +0200
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name - 2012-04-20 16:06 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? "Joe Schmo" <askmeforit@myisp.com> - 2012-04-21 02:53 -0600
Re: Writing parsers, was Good practical language and OS agnostic text? Uli Kusterer <ulimakesacompiler@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-22 16:18 +0200
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name - 2012-04-23 19:12 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? Uli Kusterer <ulimakesacompiler@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-21 11:22 +0200
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-21 18:58 -0700
Re: writing interpreters, was Good practical language and OS agnostic text? Uli Kusterer <ulimakesacompiler@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-22 12:53 +0200
Re: writing interpreters, was Good practical language and OS agnostic text? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-22 12:29 -0700
Re: generating bytecode, was Good practical language and OS agnostic text? Uli Kusterer <ulimakesacompiler@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-22 13:12 +0200
Re: Recursive descent parsing and optimization, was Good practical language and OS agnostic text? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-04-22 12:51 +0100
Re: Recursive descent parsing and optimization, was Good practical language and OS agnostic text? "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-04-22 18:18 +0200
Re: Recursive descent parsing and optimization, was Good practical language and OS agnostic text? "Bartc" <bartc@freeuk.com> - 2012-04-23 10:59 +0100
Re: Recursive descent parsing and optimization, was Good practical language and OS agnostic text? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-22 13:45 -0700
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? compilers@is-not-my.name - 2012-04-22 22:11 +0000
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-04-23 18:41 +0100
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? basile@starynkevitch.net - 2012-05-02 22:16 -0700
Re: Good practical language and OS agnostic text? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@2ndquadrant.com> - 2012-06-06 16:52 +0000
csiph-web