Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.compilers > #2041 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Nick Maclaren" <nmm@wheeler.UUCP> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-09 16:45 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-04-09 16:45 +0000 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to comp.compilers
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Language standards vs. implementation, was Re: A right alternative to IEEE-754's format "Nick Maclaren" <nmm@wheeler.UUCP> - 2018-04-09 16:45 +0000
| From | "Nick Maclaren" <nmm@wheeler.UUCP> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 16:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Language standards vs. implementation, was Re: A right alternative to IEEE-754's format |
| Message-ID | <18-04-013@comp.compilers> |
[[ this string is copied from comp.arch because your moderation found it interesting ]] In article <pag2qg$lq4$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >On 2018-04-09 7:48 AM, David Brown 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. Yes. Yuck. It's a nightmare for debugging, and makes it damn-near impossible to tune code that is going to be run by someone else. >- Direct compiling to machine code and not using intermediate assembler >to get away from the two copy problem with code generation ISA restrictions. Well, er, yes, in theory. But suitable intermediate non-text languages (assembler is, I agree, outdated) are a vast simplification of compilers that are designed for multiple source languages and multiple target machines. gcc is one such. >- Whole application building. Why is linking still being done when its >purpose was to get around computer limitations? No, it wasn't. That was ONE purpose. A far more important one was to allow and support separate compilation, as needed when an application uses a library built by someone else. And how many large and serious programs DON'T do that? Regards, Nick Maclaren.
Back to top | Article view | comp.compilers
csiph-web