Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.compilers > #1141
| From | noitalmost <noitalmost@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.compilers |
| Subject | Re: Having trouble converting composite variables to intermediate form |
| Date | 2014-03-10 15:18 -0400 |
| Organization | Compilers Central |
| Message-ID | <14-03-019@comp.compilers> (permalink) |
| References | <14-02-029@comp.compilers> <YJYW1n00f1AptjU01JYXKV> |
On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:27:00 AM Momchil Velikov wrote: > On Saturday, February 22, 2014 7:32:01 PM UTC+2, noitalmost wrote: > > x := r.a[2] + 5; > > > > > > After parsing, the Wirl AST fragment looks like: > > > > Assign > > > > Ident x > > Op + > > > > RecAccess > > > > Ident r > > ArrAccess > > > > Ident a > > Num 2 > > You have currently > > RecAccess(r, ArrAccess(Ident(a), Num(2))) > > Note, however, that the array is not `a`, it's `r.a`. The subtree > `ArrAccess(Ident(a), Num(2)) `is incorrect, because you don't have in fact > a variable named `a` of an array type. > > Here the record access should take precedence over array access, i.e. > the AST should look like: > > ArrAccess(RecAccess(r, Ident(a)), Num(2)) Thanks. I eventually figured it out independently by working backward from the C code I wanted to generate. The compiler can now handle arbitrary combinations of records, arrays, and pointers. I spent a week jumping up and down and dancing. Wirl has now graduated from toy to fun toy :)
Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Having trouble converting composite variables to intermediate form noitalmost <noitalmost@cox.net> - 2014-02-22 12:32 -0500 Re: Having trouble converting composite variables to intermediate form Momchil Velikov <momchil.velikov@gmail.com> - 2014-02-28 08:27 -0800 Re: Having trouble converting composite variables to intermediate form noitalmost <noitalmost@cox.net> - 2014-03-10 15:18 -0400
csiph-web