Question on compiling to bytecode

[Per Bothner]

Erol Akarsu wrote:
> I have one question. In the KAWA-related paper, it is  mentioned that it
> is
> better to translate Scheme to java bytecode directly because of easiness
> of
> writing interactive programs. I agree with that. But I need GCJ to make
> full optimization. Currently,  Gcj has to work on bytecode generated by
> Kawa to optimize, but this may not produce optimal code. What about Kawa
> 
> should have also an option to generate full Java source code translation
> 
> instead of bytecode. Therefore, Gcj will have opportunity to apply full
> optimization power on it. Can we make it?

Currently Kawa is tied to producing bytecode only.  One could
conceivably extend it to other "backends", such as Java source,
or C source or .net bytecodes or whatever.  However, that is a
really big project, and difficult to justify.  I'd only do it
somebody paid me (well) to do it.

It seems better to enhance GCJ to do better optimizations on
bytecodes.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/per/