4 ms·
Good question! BCPL's O-Code is far different from LLVM bytecode. O-Code was little more than a virtual stack machine. Very similar to Forth, though slightly m
by kick 7y ago
Good question!
BCPL's O-Code is far different from LLVM bytecode. O-Code was little more than a virtual stack machine. Very similar to Forth, though slightly more complicated.
I could be wrong, but isn't Open64 more or less dead? The only thing I can think of that actually uses it (CUDA) isn't best-in-class.
- ZeRoo 7y agoSo u say, LLVM or whatever is insane because it's large. so what do u think about QBE[0] ? 0 : https://c9x.me/compile/ https://c9x.me/compile/
- kick 7y agoI don't know enough about QBE to give a well-informed assessment of it, so I'll refrain.
- onei 7y agoI believe you're correct about Open64, but it was an interesting examples of a compiler when I was researching them last, particularly its usage of WHIRL [1]. It's a similar approach as used by GCC and LLVM with their front, middle and back-end approach, although I can't quite remember if it pioneered that approach or not. [1] https://www.mcs.anl.gov/OpenAD/open64A.pdf https://www.mcs.anl.gov/OpenAD/open64A.pdf