Comments on: Toy compiler http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29 for Epigram Sun, 6 Nov 2011 09:25:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Edwin http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29&cpage=1#comment-131 Edwin Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:29:32 +0000 http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29#comment-131 Seems sensible to put it in CVS. If the permissions work, I'll put it in some sensible place... Seems sensible to put it in CVS. If the permissions work, I’ll put it in some sensible place…

]]> By: pwm http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29&cpage=1#comment-127 pwm Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:52:08 +0000 http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29#comment-127 CVS permissions were a bit of a nightmare, til we actually asked a sys-admin what to do, and now it works (fingers crossed). I suppose this would be a good test for it in any case ;) CVS permissions were a bit of a nightmare, til we actually asked a sys-admin what to do, and now it works (fingers crossed). I suppose this would be a good test for it in any case ;)

]]> By: Conor http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29&cpage=1#comment-126 Conor Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:40:17 +0000 http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29#comment-126 Now I get the picture. The evals in test.tt get blatted out as compile-time diagnostics; I have to tweak testdrive.c if I want to run the compiled code on different examples. By the way, have we got the cvs permissions sorted out yet? It strikes me that a copy of the ExTT stuff ought to live here, if you're happy about that, Edwin. Now I get the picture. The evals in test.tt get blatted out as compile-time diagnostics; I have to tweak testdrive.c if I want to run the compiled code on different examples.

By the way, have we got the cvs permissions sorted out yet? It strikes me that a copy of the ExTT stuff ought to live here, if you’re happy about that, Edwin.

]]> By: pwm http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29&cpage=1#comment-125 pwm Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:06:54 +0000 http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29#comment-125 If you type 'make' in the ExTT directory it should then work how the script says If you type ‘make’ in the ExTT directory it should then work how the script says

]]> By: Conor http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29&cpage=1#comment-124 Conor Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:48:02 +0000 http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29#comment-124 My computer is now happy and can collect garbage. What I don't quite get yet is how to gcc the output of the compiler to get an executable, so I can just have 6! like the script sez. It shouldn't be too long before we adapt this to Frame... My computer is now happy and can collect garbage. What I don’t quite get yet is how to gcc the output of the compiler to get an executable, so I can just have 6! like the script sez.

It shouldn’t be too long before we adapt this to Frame…

]]> By: pcc http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29&cpage=1#comment-122 pcc Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:08:36 +0000 http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29#comment-122 I'm a bit surprised that NbE takes so much memory, even for the expensive definitions. I would expect (at first glance) that even though the eliminators go through the bigger values, the whole thing is more or less `linear'. I mean, I would expect it to grab & free lots of memory, rather than keep big bits. Perhaps there's a space leak in the NbE code? It might be worth careful profiling. Also, have you compared compiler output performance with Coq? It will be interesting to know what kind of factor change there is. I’m a bit surprised that NbE takes so much memory, even for the expensive definitions. I would expect (at first glance) that even though the eliminators go through the bigger values, the whole
thing is more or less `linear’. I mean, I would expect it to grab & free lots of memory, rather than keep big bits. Perhaps there’s a space leak in the NbE code? It might be worth careful profiling.

Also, have you compared compiler output performance with Coq? It will be interesting to know what kind of factor change there is.

]]> By: Edwin http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29&cpage=1#comment-120 Edwin Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:07:04 +0000 http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29#comment-120 The script does 6!, but my test driver does 7!. This is because NbE can't cope with 7!... (or at least, I quit after it started using 512Mb...) As for the definitions; not deliberate, but also not thinking. It does make a huge difference! The script does 6!, but my test driver does 7!. This is because NbE can’t cope with 7!…
(or at least, I quit after it started using 512Mb…)

As for the definitions; not deliberate, but also not thinking. It does make a huge difference!

]]> By: pcc http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29&cpage=1#comment-119 pcc Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:57:05 +0000 http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29#comment-119 Bug? 6! = 720, but the code is producing 7! = 5040. NB the definitions of mult & fac are expensive - is this deliberate? (ie they analyse the larger arguments...) Bug?
6! = 720, but the code is producing 7! = 5040.

NB the definitions of mult & fac are expensive – is this
deliberate? (ie they analyse the larger arguments…)

]]> By: Edwin http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29&cpage=1#comment-116 Edwin Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:33:05 +0000 http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29#comment-116 Come to think of it, you'll probably also need the garbage collector library, "apt-get install libgc-dev"... Come to think of it, you’ll probably also need the garbage collector
library, “apt-get install libgc-dev”…

]]> By: pwm http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29&cpage=1#comment-115 pwm Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:52:38 +0000 http://www.e-pig.org/epilogue/?p=29#comment-115 <pre>apt-get install happy</pre> I'm pretty sure Debian knows what Happiness is. apt-get install happy

I’m pretty sure Debian knows what Happiness is.

]]>