Xref: utzoo comp.arch:6531 comp.lang.misc:1979
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!vsi1!altnet!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!lfcs!db
From: db@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Machine-independent intermediate languages
Keywords: virtual machine language design
Message-ID: <836@etive.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 11 Oct 88 13:38:55 GMT
References: <e2uEl#2ORJzO=eric@snark.UUCP> <853@goofy.megatest.UUCP> <905@sword.bellcore.com> <5933@june.cs.washington.edu>
Sender: news@etive.ed.ac.uk
Reply-To: db@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U
Lines: 20

In article <5933@june.cs.washington.edu> pardo@uw-june.UUCP (David Keppel) writes:
>
>What other machines use virtual machine specifications?  I know Prolog
>has an abstract machine, but I don't think that it is in any way
>required for a Prolog implementation.

Some formal specifcation techniques use abstract machines.  These can
often be implemented.  By definition, any implementation of the language
must mirror the behaviour of an implementation of the formal semantics
on a "semantic abstract machine".

One example of such a machine is the Typol system written by Gilles Kahn
and his group at INRIA.  This converts natural semantics specifications
to Prolog and runs them in an integrated environment.  (The environment
is called Centaur; Typol is the semantic specification language).
They've specified the Standard ML core language, among others.

Dave Berry,	Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh.
		db%lfcs.ed.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
		<Atlantic Ocean>!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!db