J.C. Pizarro wrote: > IMHO, in the future, GCC as a base an experimal compiler IS NOT good > because of enormeous complexities to design this optimizing compiler. > > My reasons to select a good base are: > > * the programming language to develop a complex optimizing compiler > MUST TO be high-level, more declarative than machine-imperative, OO, > GC'ed, polymorphic and easier to interact with A.I. agents (e.g. ala > ants colonies) to go storing better rules in the databases (to reuse > them later). > > * the C programming language that is used to develop GCC is not > following above these principles.
If you have a sufficiently good code-aware AI system (e.g. ants colonies?!), then you can use it to _translate_ and _extract_ all the interesting bits of GCC into its database, or even into your preferred high-level language, and discard the fluff like C syntax and obsolete rules. If your AI isn't that good, I question whether it's good enough to do the job you want it to :-) -- Jamie
