Re: [Oopic-compiler-devel] Compiler design

[Andrew P. <wa...@ic...>]

At 09:13 PM 5/11/2004 -0400, D. Daniel McGlothin wrote:
>A couple of quick thoughts.
>
>1. lack of support for the three syntax styles Savage implemented is
>probably a non-starter (unless we have the IDE selecting between the OOpicMK
>compiler and this one).  As it is now, the user must specify the syntax; we
>can require the same as a command line.  Or possibly use a token in the
>sourcecode similar to what Parallax did with their new PBasic syntax and the
>firmware revisions, and let the preprocessor pick it out.

Using the existing compiler's command line flags makes sense (makes ours a
drop in replacement).  Nothing wrong with supporting a token in the source
code as well (it would override the command line).  As I think about it, I
like the idea of simply writing a trivial prescanner that determines what
language the user picked.  If you find "sub void", it ain't real C, etc.
Lots of semicolons means it's not BASIC, etc.


>
>2. After those, the grammer for an (or many) arbitrary syntax could be
>defined.
>
>3. In all cases, the compiler tools yield a similar internal representation
>that is subjected to code generation and optimization.  For the original
>scripts' syntax, should we generate identical code to the OOpicMK or use our
>own?

The currently generated code is pretty bad.  I'm sure we can do better.


>
>4. Does the grammer specification require some (or deep) knowledge of the
>possible syntactical structures the native byte-codes would permit?  If so,
>then I should get some more work done.

The native bytecodes will tell us what we can and can't do.  I see the
bytecode map as step #1.


...Andy