From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,5412c98a3943e746 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.134.225 with SMTP id pn1mr592408pbb.7.1331082032992; Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:00:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Path: h9ni47806pbe.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!87.79.20.101.MISMATCH!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Verified compilers? Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 19:00:25 -0600 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <9207716.776.1331054644462.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynaz38> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1331082029 31532 69.95.181.76 (7 Mar 2012 01:00:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 01:00:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Date: 2012-03-06T19:00:25-06:00 List-Id: "Shark8" wrote in message news:9207716.776.1331054644462.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynaz38... > On Monday, March 5, 2012 7:27:25 PM UTC-6, Randy Brukardt wrote: >> >> In any case, no one is going to run out and totally rebuild their >> compiler >> because someone has found a supposedly "better" architecture for it. >> There >> were many such better architectures when I started out (supposely >> everything >> was going to be table-driven and automatically generated), and they're >> all >> long gone. No reason to assume that anything is different here. > > I seem to recall someone on this forum doing a table-driven approach, > though it might have > only been WRT tokenization... The table-driven approaches I was thinking of were involved with semantics and code generation. Table-driver parsers and tokenizers are common (Janus/Ada uses a table-driven parser, for instance.) And to be fair, we did use a tiny corner of a table-driver approach in our code generator (there is a pattern-matching table for generating improved code for some sequences). We've move away from that in recent updates (we used to handle all numeric literals using the table, nowdays they are handled as special stack contents, a more general approach allowing more use of indexed addressing modes and instructions with embedded constants). Randy.