OpenEuphoria

Re: Some Euphoria questions

• Posted by "Cuny, David at DSS" <David.Cuny at DSS.CA.GOV> Aug 17, 2000
• 650 views

Robert Craig wrote:

> See attached.

And at last, the innards of the Euphoria are revealed! (Without error
checking, of course.)

After a quick look at your code, I don't see any major secrets being given
away that can't be gleaned from Peuphoria. It's nice to see that we made
some good guesses, even if my own implementation of sequences was just plain
awful.

Seeing binary_op and unary_op defined instead of add/sub/mul/div was a bit
of a suprise, but makes sense.

I'm suprised by how readable the generated code it: nice indentation,
references to the original Euphoria source code lines, C variables sharing
the same names as the Euphoria code. Loops unsuprisingly optimized to jumps;
I would imagine Euphoria generates 'real' machine code.

Oddly, you define constants (like BATCH), but never reference them, and
instead of calling it like:

   _0cycles = _0cycles + BATCH;

you optimize it away:

   _0cycles = _0cycles + 50;

But I'm not supposed to be reading automatically generated code, am I? 

It's also nice to see the makefile is automatically generated.

Very cool!

-- David Cuny