From: Patrycjusz R. Łogiewa (silverdr_at_inet.com.pl)
Date: 2004-12-14 12:15:18
On 13 gru 2004, at 18:54, Greg King wrote:
> From: Patrycjusz R. Łogiewa; on Date: December 13, 2004 05:57 AM -0500
>>
>> AFAIR, all the others mentioned here weren't really compiling BASIC
>> into
>> machine code, but rather into so-called "speedcodes". That (AFAIR,
>> again)
>> was something like calling BASIC routines for the given keywords
>> rather
>> than having the interpreter to read and interpret the tokens.
>>
>> Corrections to the above, anyone?
>
> The speed-code output of the compilers is appended to a rather large
> run-time module that interprets them, in the same way that the BASIC
> ROM
> interprets BASIC tokens. Those compiled programs run faster because
> integer variables are combined directly by real integer operations, and
> data is predigested: during the compilation, PETSCII numbers are
> converted
> into binary, the lengths of string-literals are measured, and the
> variables
> tables are pre-built -- varible-names are replaced by offsets into
> those
> tables. The compiled program doesn't need to spend time creating and
> looking for its data.
Yes. That's more or less what I thought. And the bottom line of this is
that the speedcode compilers' outputs aren't good examples to study
when searching the ML solution to a given BASIC algorithm, are they?
>
> By the way, those compilers are recursively-built. They are BASIC
> programs
> which compiled themselves.
>
Huh, never realised that!
--
GNU - GNU's Not Unix - Richard Stallman?
Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.