Feedback-free modularization of compilers
The SCT is as far as we can go without introducing serious machine dependencies. The remaining steps in the process fall beyond the scope of this paper.
We have proposed a fairly elaborate structuring of the translation process. We are trying to follow the prescription in our present translator writing system effort. We expect to simplify the task of compiler writing, but only for languages with structure amenable to the restrictions of the system.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- McKeeman, W. M., Compiler Structure, Proc. USA-Japan Computer Conference, (Oct. 1972) 448–455.Google Scholar
- Louis, P.M. and Sterns, R. E., Syntax-directed Transduction, JACM v. 15, n. 3 (July 1968) 465–493.Google Scholar
- DeRemer, F. L., Practical Translators for LR(k) Languages, PhD Thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. (1969).Google Scholar
- Wozencraft, J.M. and Evans, A., Notes on Programming Linguistics, Dept. E.E., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. (1971).Google Scholar
- Evans, A., PAL, A Language for Teaching Programming Linguistics, Proc. 23rd National Conf. of the ACM (1968) 395–403.Google Scholar
- DeRemer, F.L., Transformational Grammars for Languages and Compilers TR50, Computing Laboratory, University of Newcastle-on-Tyne, England (submitted for publication).Google Scholar
- Knuth, D.E., Semantics of Context-free Languages, Math Systems Theory J., v. 2, n. 2 (1968) 127–146.Google Scholar
- Wilner, W. T., Declarative Semantic Definition, STAN-CS-233-71, PhD Thesis, Stanford, CA (1971).Google Scholar