Groups > comp.compilers > #2064

Re: 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!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end
From	bartc <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups	comp.compilers
Subject	Re: Language standards vs. implementation, was Re: A right alternative to IEEE-754's format
Date	Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:15:27 +0100
Organization	virginmedia.com
Lines	42
Sender	news@iecc.com
Approved	comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID	<18-04-047@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References	<0d4dc7f8-1819-43e5-8082-6ff7aee5f41b@googlegroups.com> <p9l0cs$p2r$1@gioia.aioe.org> <p9l9bs$am7$1@dont-email.me> <p9ldok$1h9j$1@gioia.aioe.org> <p9li4d$4mn$1@dont-email.me> <p9lvbt$fn0$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2018Mar31.160556@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <p9o96c$1r72$1@gioia.aioe.org> <p9ohgc$vdl$1@dont-email.me> <2018Mar31.195714@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <p9osbc$6mv$1@dont-email.me> <2018Apr1.144759@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <p9u1fk$hsb$1@dont-email.me> <229d6323-b9fa-4845-8039-03799d76c847@googlegroups.com> <p9viff$qnj$1@dont-email.me> <cbebbb95-e32d-4e97-8b2f-829c38ebb66e@googlegroups.com> <pafisn$1n9t$1@gioia.aioe.org> <pafjtv$ocr$1@dont-email.me> <18-04-011@comp.compilers>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	8bit
Injection-Info	gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="40266"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords	C, optimize
Posted-Date	12 Apr 2018 11:23:36 EDT
X-submission-address	compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address	compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives	http://compilers.iecc.com
In-Reply-To	<18-04-011@comp.compilers>
Content-Language	en-GB
Xref	csiph.com comp.compilers:2064

Show key headers only | View raw

On 10/04/2018 16:05, Walter Banks wrote:
>> On 09/04/18 13:30, Walter Banks 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.
>
> - Direct compiling to machine code and not using intermediate assembler

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

Whole project compiling? I have a whole project compiler for one
language, and a half-completed one for another. Both need to be very
fast because they have to compile a whole application from scratch each
time (aiming for 0.1 secs build time per typical application).

But both languages have the features necessary to make that possible.

C doesn't; separate compilation and linking might still be the simplest
model for it.

Compilation speed is compromised anyway by needing to re-process header
files multiple times. (Precompiled headers aren't a solution because you
still have to process that precompiled header file; it might just be
faster than working with source code.)

I'm not saying it's not practical with C, but the language makes it harder.

(By 'whole project' I mean all the source modules that are normally
processed to end up with a single executable or shared library file.
External binary libraries stay external.)

--
bartc

Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

Language standards vs. implementation, was Re: A right alternative to IEEE-754's format "Walter Banks" <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2018-04-10 11:05 -0400
  Re: Language standards vs. implementation, was Re: A right alternative to IEEE-754's format bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-12 12:15 +0100

csiph-web