Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: gah4 Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Are transpiling techniques different than compiling techniques? Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2021 15:01:02 -0700 (PDT) Organization: Compilers Central Lines: 23 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <21-10-031@comp.compilers> References: <21-10-017@comp.compilers> <21-10-018@comp.compilers> <21-10-025@comp.compilers> <21-10-028@comp.compilers> <21-10-029@comp.compilers> 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="80162"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: history, practice, comment Posted-Date: 17 Oct 2021 18:10:54 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: <21-10-029@comp.compilers> Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:2739 On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 11:27:23 AM UTC-7, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote: (snip on compilers generating assembly source code.) > I meant the final executable result is (can be) generated from source > code by a single C compiler invocation. How this result is obtained in > detail, in how many passes, by how many related tools, is not so obvious > and of less interest to the user. Unix tradition, and still supported by gcc, is to stop after generating the assembly source file, with the -S option. Some compilers allow mixing assembly code in with the source language. Seeing the combined result makes it easier to debug. (Or edit the generated file before sending it to the assembler.) Many compilers that don't write an assemblable output file, will generate a pseudo-assembly listing. Enough to figure out what the generated code does, but usually nowhere close to input to an assembler. I mostly learned OS/360 assembly language reading the generated code listings from the Fortran compilers. [The code from Fortran G was putrid, but from Fortran H and its successors pretty impressive. -John]