Article View: comp.lang.misc
Article #1214Re: Cheap implementations of languages (Re: Pointers and poor implementations (was: Re: JLG's flogging ...))
From: Jim Giles
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 1990 02:21
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 1990 02:21
14 lines
1107 bytes
1107 bytes
From article <MEISSNER.90Apr11112529@curley.osf.org>, by meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner): > [...] > Again no. To implement arrays with static bounds, you only need to > keep the bounds (as integer constants) within the symbol table. For > full run-time dimensionable arrays, you must keep around an indication > that the array is dynamic, and where the bound is stored. You must > expand this bound expression within the tree as you are evaluating > arrays and such. Hmm. That's how I had in mind doing ALL array references. I expect the constant folding optimization to find out later that the bounds of a static array are fixed. I don't like to do things twice. J. Giles
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<14338@lambda.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!lanl!lambda!jlgReferences:
<MEISSNER.90Apr11112529@curley.osf.org>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!lanl!lambda!jlg From: jlg@lambda.UUCP (Jim Giles) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Cheap implementations of languages (Re: Pointers and poor implementations (was: Re: JLG's flogging ...)) Message-ID: <14338@lambda.UUCP> Date: 12 Apr 90 02:21:52 GMT References: <MEISSNER.90Apr11112529@curley.osf.org> Lines: 14