Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!world!iecc!compilers-sender
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: Re: Bourne shell script compiler?
Keywords: interpreter
Message-ID: <1991Feb23.233842.1843@zoo.toronto.edu>
Date: 23 Feb 91 23:38:42 GMT
References: <791@wsc-sun.BOEING.COM>
Sender: compilers-sender@iecc.cambridge.ma.us
Reply-To: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 17
Approved: compilers@iecc.cambridge.ma.us

In article <791@wsc-sun.BOEING.COM> cek@wsc-sun.boeing.com (Conrad Kimball) writes:
>I'm looking for a Bourne shell script compiler - that is, a compiler that
>accepts a Bourne shell (sh) script as input and produces C code as output.

Based on some experience with a pre-Bourne (!) shell compiler, long ago,
the benefits of such a thing are limited unless it incorporates extensive
knowledge of the more common programs invoked from shell scripts.  Running
a shell script comprises parsing, interpretation (variables etc.), and
execution (fork/exec) of programs.  A simpleminded shell compiler eliminates
the parsing and streamlines much of the interpretation, but it's the execution
that is usually the bottleneck.  You won't see a big win unless the compiler
is smart enough to optimize out some of the execution.
-- 
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology, henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
-- 
Send compilers articles to compilers@iecc.cambridge.ma.us or
{ima | spdcc | world}!iecc!compilers.  Meta-mail to compilers-request.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com