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

Groups > comp.compilers > #2041

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 <pag2qg$lq4$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Walter Banks  <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>On 2018-04-09 7:48 AM, David Brown wrote:
>
>>> GCC tools are for the most part using old compiler technology.
>>> Some of is decades old.
>>
>> You are fond of saying that, but I don't remember hearing any
>> details or examples.
>
>- Strategy passes to determine how an applications should be compiled
>this time.

Yes.  Yuck.  It's a nightmare for debugging, and makes it damn-near
impossible to tune code that is going to be run by someone else.

>- 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(assembler is, I agree, outdated) are a vast simplification of compilers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.

>- Whole application building. Why is linking still being done when its
>purpose was to get around computer limitations?

No, it wasn't.  That was ONE purpose.  A far more important one was to
allow and support separate compilation, as needed when an application
uses a library built by someone else.  And how many large and serious
programs DON'T do that?


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> - 2018-04-09 16:45 +0000

csiph-web