Groups > comp.compilers > #2039

Language standards vs. implementation, was Re: A right alternative to IEEE-754's format

From	"Walter Banks" <walter@bytecraft.com>
Newsgroups	comp.compilers
Subject	Language standards vs. implementation, was Re: A right alternative to IEEE-754's format
Date	2018-04-10 11:05 -0400
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<18-04-011@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References	(13 earlier) <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>

Show all headers | View raw

 [[ this string is copied from comp.arch because your moderation found it interesting ]]

On 2018-04-09 7:48 AM, David Brown 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
to get away from the two copy problem with code generation ISA restrictions.

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

w..

Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Next 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