Re: [q-lang-users] q in Q

[John C. <co...@cc...>]

Albert Graef scripsit:

> Yes, we already discussed this here a while ago... Translating Q's 
> bytecode would be the most straightforward approach. JIT compilation 
> looks nice, but I'm also considering compilation to C or maybe Ksi (the 
> latter approach would be tied to gcc, however). This is still a while 
> away, though (I first want to resolve all the remaining portability 
> issues and finish the Q companion book).

Sure.  There's a neat trick for fairly portable JIT compilation: you
wrap a block of code using labels, and then use memcpy to copy
everything from one label to the next into a buffer area.  Do that
for each bytecode and you've built up your compiled code in the buffer.
That way you have no dependency on assembly language.

See http://lemick.sourceforge.net/papers/JIT_design.pdf for a brief paper.

-- 
Possession is said to be nine points of the law,                John Cowan
but that's not saying how many points the law might have.       co...@cc...
        --Thomas A. Cowan (law professor and my father)