[gambit-list] Viewing CPS expansion?

Alex Queiroz asandroq at gmail.com
Mon May 25 12:03:05 EDT 2009


Hallo,

On 5/23/09, Marc Feeley <feeley at iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>
>  In the context of a full implementation of Scheme (with first class
> continuations), the use of CPS as an intermediate representation:
>
>  1) Simplifies writing a simple non-optimizing compiler (see the 90 minutes
> Scheme compiler).  Why?  Because first-class continuations come "for free".
>
>  2) Make it more difficult (but not impossible) to write an optimizing
> compiler.  Why?  Because an advanced static analysis is needed to determine
> which closures can be managed in a "stack like" manner.
>

     Thanks for the thorough explanation, Marc. Would you say that the
harder to implement advanced static analysis required would pay off in
the end, generally speaking?
     Well, this is kind of off-topic, but I'm playing with a toy
scheme compiler based on LiSP and Dybvig's PhD, so I am curious. If
this is unacceptable, let me know.

Cheers,
-- 
-alex
http://www.ventonegro.org/



More information about the Gambit-list mailing list