Re: Assembler backend (was: GNU Sather Status)

[Quinn Dunkan]

> Hi nobbi,
> 
> Norbert Nemec wrote:
> > So, the way I propose would be to create a modular compiler with a C-backend
> > which can then be optionally replaced by a assember backend.
> 
> Using an intermediate language is definitely not a wrong thing.
> However, C language has its own assumptions, and might not be very effective
> as an intermediate language. The affordance here is that C is quite portable.
> 
> How about making sather generate intermediate code for a known intermediate
> language?

Like what?  The only one I know of is C--, and I don't think that's in a
usable state.

ghc can generate both C and assembler (for a few architectures).  Native
compilation often makes slower binaries, but is a lot faster.

I do most of my work on a platform for which the only available compiler is a
C compiler, and I think a C backend is a better idea.  Since sather is not a
very popular language, if I want it ported I would have to do it myself.

Native code is a refinement which can be convenient in terms of compilation
speed and binary size (for those who happen to have the right platform), but
is not essential.  I'd rather have a clean, well-tested, functional C backend
and an experimental under-development native code compiler than the other way
around.

Or if you want compilation speed, ocaml has a bytecode compiler in addition to
a native compiler.  Seems to work ok.