On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 03:56:38PM -0500, Hendrik Boom wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:04:55AM -0500, Marc Feeley wrote:
On 2011-01-27, at 2:42 AM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 09:42:31PM -0500, Marc Feeley wrote:
On 2011-01-26, at 6:38 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
Does that x86 back end generate code directly into memory, augmenting the running system? Or does it generate code into a file that has to be executed from the OS?
The back-end includes an assembler which can output the machine code to a byte vector or a file. In the tests I have done the code was generated into memory and executed without accessing the filesystem.
Great! That's what I was hoping for. I've been tinkering with some similar stuff, but without using a nice language to write the code generator in (I used C/C++) and was just realising I needed a better notation for expressing the code generation patterns -- A better notation such as that available in Scheme. I was trying to be source-language-agnostic.
Any chance I could have a look at your code, and possibly repurpose it?
I'm currently doing a major refactoring of the code, so this is a bad moment to share the code with you. Can you wait a few weeks?
A few weeks have now passed. May I have a look at it now?
If it's still not ready, I'd rather look at what you've got than wait another few weeks.
-- hendrik
This might be the worst possible time to start using or modifying your code, but an excellent time to start reading it. Most of my effort will probably be into figuring out how Scheme has changed since I first ran into it in Guy Steele's masters thesis. That was, after all, another Scheme in Scheme (or something like it) compiler.
-- hendrik _______________________________________________ Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list