Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.compilers > #2042 > unrolled thread

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

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.

Contents

  Language standards vs. implementation, was Re: A right alternative to IEEE-754's format "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-04-10 11:06 -0400

#2042 — Language standards vs. implementation, was Re: A right alternative to IEEE-754's format

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

On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 10:45:15 AM UTC-6, Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article <pag2qg$lq4$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Walter Banks  <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

> >- 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 (assembler is, I agree, outdated) are a vast simplification of compilers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.

Also, that's hardly a tactic that postdates Aho, Hopcroft, and Ullman. Fortran G
may have compiled to a P-code like form, being written by an external company
that made compilers to order for whatever architecture - but Fortran H went
directly to 360 machine code.

John Savard

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.compilers

csiph-web