Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.compilers > #2036

Language standards vs. implementation, was Re: A right alternative to IEEE-754's format

Show all headers | View raw

 [[ this string is copied from comp.arch because your moderation found it interesting ]]

In article <5b7f2483-dd96-451d-8764-1df74832eaff@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> >- Direct compiling to machine code and not using intermediate assembler
>> >to get away from the two copy problem with code generation ISA restrictions.
>
>> Well, er, yes, in theory.  But suitable intermediate non-text languages
>> (assembler is, I agree, outdated) are a vast simplification of compilers
>> that are designed for multiple source languages and multiple target
>> machines.  gcc is one such.
>
>Also, that's hardly a tactic that postdates Aho, Hopcroft, and Ullman.

Most definitely.  Both approaches were old hat LONG before.

>Fortran G
>may have compiled to a P-code like form, being written by an external company
>that made compilers to order for whatever architecture - but Fortran H went
>directly to 360 machine code.

And therein hangs a tale.  Fortran G was a fairly good compiler, and
actually generated BETTER code than Fortran H did, in many important
respects.  More relevantly, attempting to fix those in Fortran H, X
and Q, and even VS Fortran, was impossible because of its design.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next | Find similar

Thread

Language standards vs. implementation, was Re: A right alternative to IEEE-754's format "Nick Maclaren" <nmm@wheeler.UUCP> - 2018-04-10 11:04 -0400

csiph-web