Path: csiph.com!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: "Quadibloc" Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Language standards vs. implementation, was Re: A right alternative to IEEE-754's format Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:06:58 -0400 (EDT) Organization: Compilers Central Lines: 20 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <18-04-015@comp.compilers> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="51638"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: standards, history Posted-Date: 10 Apr 2018 11:06:58 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:2042 [[ this string is copied from comp.arch because your moderation found it interesting ]] On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 10:45:15 AM UTC-6, Nick Maclaren wrote: > In article , > Walter Banks 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 (assembler is, I agree, outdated) are a vast simplification of compilers 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. 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. John Savard