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 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> References: <0d4dc7f8-1819-43e5-8082-6ff7aee5f41b@googlegroups.com> <2018Mar31.160556@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2018Mar31.195714@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2018Apr1.144759@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <229d6323-b9fa-4845-8039-03799d76c847@googlegroups.com> <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 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