Path: csiph.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: BartC Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: New experimental back end for C/C++ compiler targeting CLI Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:48:49 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 29 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <16-08-015@comp.compilers> References: <16-08-007@comp.compilers> <16-08-008@comp.compilers> <16-08-009@comp.compilers> <16-08-011@comp.compilers> <16-08-012@comp.compilers> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: miucha.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="23073"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: translator Posted-Date: 30 Aug 2016 21:49:53 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:1737 On 30/08/2016 02:21, Walter Banks wrote: > On 2016-08-29 1:52 PM, BartC wrote: >> I've played with source-to-source translators, and never managed to >> deal with comments properly and in the end gave up. ... > > > How we handled the comments on the asm to asm translation was put the > whole sourceline into in our case a C statement // comment with enough > parsing information to tie it as well to the generated code. A filter > (In our case a compiler pragma) reprocessed the listing line. It could > have been done with a small post processing program quite easily. I'm mainly familiar with ASM syntax that is strictly line-oriented and with a flat code structure. Then comments can either be tied to a particular instruction, or are on their own line and might be assumed to refer to the next block of instructions. (But then, they could be continuing a long comment too.) But I'm not sure what you mean by an ASM to ASM translator; from your other remarks it sounds like this is an ASM to C translator, where the C is then compiled to another ASM (presumably with the original comments?). It still doesn't sound that straightforward when N commented lines in the source end up as M commented lines in output. And surely sometimes the comments for the source ASM are meaningless on the target? -- Bartc