On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 12:50:21PM -0500, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > > > On Feb 6, 2019, at 12:30 PM, 'Paulo Matos' via Racket Users > > <racket-users@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > I was quite surprised to read these nanopass ideas have been around for > > so long. > > > 1. The educational idea came first: > > A Nanopass framework for compiler education. • Volume 15, Issue 5 • September > 2005 , pp. 653-667 > > https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-functional-programming/article/educational-pearl-a-nanopass-framework-for-compiler-education/1E378B9B451270AF6A155FA0C21C04A3 > > 2. The experience report of applying the idea to a commercial compiler came > about 10 years later: > > A Nanopass framework for commercial compiler development. ICFP ’13 , pp > 343-350 > > https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2500618 > <https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2500618>
* Back in the 60's I was told that a compile for the IBM 1401 operated as many many passes -- maybe 8 or 20 or so? The program would be processed from ne magnetic tape to another many many times. Not because the language was so interlocked. But because the machine's memory was so small that an entire normal pass wouldn't fit in memory. * And in I believe the late 70's or early 80's the pqcc was in development as a research tool in optimisation. It too ws structured as many passes over a single data structure representing the program. One consistent notation was used throughout. Why? So they could freely experiment with inserting, replacing, and permuting passes to see what effect they had on the produced object code. -- hendrik -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
