Groups > comp.compilers > #2036

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

Path	csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end
From	"Nick Maclaren" <nmm@wheeler.UUCP>
Newsgroups	comp.compilers
Subject	Language standards vs. implementation, was Re: A right alternative to IEEE-754's format
Date	Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:04:02 -0400 (EDT)
Organization	Old Fogies Society
Lines	31
Sender	news@iecc.com
Approved	comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID	<18-04-006@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References	<0d4dc7f8-1819-43e5-8082-6ff7aee5f41b@googlegroups.com> <pag2qg$lq4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <pag5ao$h59$1@dont-email.me> <5b7f2483-dd96-451d-8764-1df74832eaff@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To	nmm1@cam.ac.uk
Injection-Info	gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="49642"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords	standards
Posted-Date	10 Apr 2018 11:04:02 EDT
X-submission-address	compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address	compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives	http://compilers.iecc.com
Xref	csiph.com comp.compilers:2036

Show key headers only | 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 (assembler is, I agree, outdated) are a vast simplification of compilers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