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" 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> References: <0d4dc7f8-1819-43e5-8082-6ff7aee5f41b@googlegroups.com> <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 [[ this string is copied from comp.arch because your moderation found it interesting ]] In article <5b7f2483-dd96-451d-8764-1df74832eaff@googlegroups.com>, Quadibloc 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 (assembler is, I agree, outdated) are a vast simplification of compilers 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.