Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #12096 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sheky <shekhar07.nitdgp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-12-06 08:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2011-12-06 14:47 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 133 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
C++ source code compilation Sheky <shekhar07.nitdgp@gmail.com> - 2011-12-06 08:49 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-06 17:06 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-07 07:39 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 14:11 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 17:37 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2011-12-07 12:28 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-07 11:04 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-12-07 19:53 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-12-07 20:41 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-12-08 19:48 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-07 14:56 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2011-12-07 16:09 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 22:27 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-08 09:28 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 13:39 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 06:26 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 10:55 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-08 03:41 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 13:42 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-12-08 13:56 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 14:11 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-12-08 14:21 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-12-08 08:38 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 00:39 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 00:31 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-12-09 12:12 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-08 08:56 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-09 05:23 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 14:16 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2011-12-08 08:02 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-08 13:18 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2011-12-09 11:43 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-09 17:24 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> - 2011-12-09 18:06 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 17:39 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 18:02 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-07 14:58 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 22:20 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 22:42 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 01:54 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-12-07 16:55 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 22:58 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-12-07 20:52 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 05:09 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 05:15 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> - 2011-12-08 11:37 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 00:45 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-12-10 21:46 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2011-12-11 16:01 +0100
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 01:59 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-08 09:35 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-12-08 12:43 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 06:31 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-09 19:40 +1300
Re: C++ source code compilation gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-12-08 23:47 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2011-12-09 02:29 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation Tobias Müller <troplin@bluewin.ch> - 2011-12-09 07:23 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-12-08 23:46 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 09:24 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 11:01 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 12:23 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 10:58 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 12:35 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 12:44 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-09 04:55 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 14:20 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 14:33 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 14:58 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 15:11 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-10 07:59 +1300
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 15:09 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 19:36 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 19:53 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-10 10:03 +1300
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 21:10 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-09 14:06 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 23:04 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 23:15 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 23:37 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 01:51 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-10 09:51 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 13:50 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-11 08:53 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-11 20:17 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 12:37 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 13:45 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-10 13:49 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 14:37 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-11 08:55 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 14:07 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 14:28 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 14:50 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 14:54 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 15:17 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 18:13 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 18:36 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 22:34 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 22:46 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 23:25 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 23:30 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-11 03:23 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-11 09:12 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-12 10:05 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 12:05 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-12 12:58 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-11 13:29 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-11 20:33 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-11 07:14 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-11 09:07 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Tobias Müller <troplin@bluewin.ch> - 2011-12-10 14:52 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-10 15:24 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-11 09:05 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-11 09:01 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-11 20:22 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-12 10:11 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 15:08 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-12-09 15:08 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-08 02:53 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-08 05:16 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-08 03:50 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 14:01 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 06:35 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 11:06 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-12-09 12:38 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2011-12-11 12:41 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-12-11 21:02 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 02:19 +0000
Re: C++ source code compilation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-11 20:02 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2011-12-06 09:15 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Sheky <shekhar07.nitdgp@gmail.com> - 2011-12-06 10:29 -0800
Re: C++ source code compilation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-06 12:39 -0600
Re: C++ source code compilation Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2011-12-06 13:51 -0500
Re: C++ source code compilation Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2011-12-06 14:47 -0800
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Sheky <shekhar07.nitdgp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-06 08:49 -0800 |
| Subject | C++ source code compilation |
| Message-ID | <ebe43093-5bbb-4a73-a059-b7c51db1a3a8@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
Could anyone please answer if every C++ programs get converted to equivalent C code during compilation ? Thank you.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-06 17:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <-66dnSWxcIcy1kPTnZ2dnUVZ8sOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #12096 |
On 06/12/2011 16:49, Sheky wrote: > Could anyone please answer if every C++ programs get converted to > equivalent C code during compilation ? Thank you. Some early C++ compilers worked this way but I suspect very few modern C++ compilers produce C as an intermediate but rather create machine code directly. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-07 07:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4edf181e$0$2821$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #12097 |
Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote: > On 06/12/2011 16:49, Sheky wrote: >> Could anyone please answer if every C++ programs get converted to >> equivalent C code during compilation ? Thank you. > > Some early C++ compilers worked this way but I suspect very few modern > C++ compilers produce C as an intermediate but rather create machine > code directly. Actually compilers, especially those supporting many languages (such as gcc) probably produce a kind of "intermediate" form (which is more or less common to all the languages that the compiler supports), which is then optimized and compiled into asm. (This intermediate form isn't a programming language per se, but usually some tokenized and "half-compiled" tree data in binary form, or similar.) Anyways, converting a C++ program into C and then compiling that C would be inefficient, complicated and produce a less efficient result (because the compiler cannot use its knowledge of the C++ syntax in order to better optimize the code), so it would make little sense. (As an example, I'm guessing that exception handling is impossible to convert into C code so that it would be as efficient as when compiling C++ directly. C++ exceptions are designed so that if no exception is thrown, the code will be as efficient as if no exceptions were in use at all. I think this would be impossible to express in C.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-07 14:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <K5udnatCeKez6ULTnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #12107 |
On 07/12/2011 07:39, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Leigh Johnston<leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote: >> On 06/12/2011 16:49, Sheky wrote: >>> Could anyone please answer if every C++ programs get converted to >>> equivalent C code during compilation ? Thank you. >> >> Some early C++ compilers worked this way but I suspect very few modern >> C++ compilers produce C as an intermediate but rather create machine >> code directly. > > Actually compilers, especially those supporting many languages (such as > gcc) probably produce a kind of "intermediate" form (which is more or less > common to all the languages that the compiler supports), which is then > optimized and compiled into asm. (This intermediate form isn't a programming > language per se, but usually some tokenized and "half-compiled" tree data in > binary form, or similar.) > > Anyways, converting a C++ program into C and then compiling that C would > be inefficient, complicated and produce a less efficient result (because > the compiler cannot use its knowledge of the C++ syntax in order to better > optimize the code), so it would make little sense. > > (As an example, I'm guessing that exception handling is impossible to > convert into C code so that it would be as efficient as when compiling > C++ directly. C++ exceptions are designed so that if no exception is > thrown, the code will be as efficient as if no exceptions were in use > at all. I think this would be impossible to express in C.) This intermediate form you speak of is usually internal to the compiler whereas the OP specifically asked about compilers that produce C code which is then also compiled. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-07 17:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbo896$2pf3$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12107 |
"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message news:4edf181e$0$2821$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... > Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote: >> On 06/12/2011 16:49, Sheky wrote: >>> Could anyone please answer if every C++ programs get converted to >>> equivalent C code during compilation ? Thank you. >> >> Some early C++ compilers worked this way but I suspect very few modern >> C++ compilers produce C as an intermediate but rather create machine >> code directly. > > Actually compilers, especially those supporting many languages (such as > gcc) probably produce a kind of "intermediate" form (which is more or less > common to all the languages that the compiler supports), which is then > optimized and compiled into asm. (This intermediate form isn't a > programming > language per se, but usually some tokenized and "half-compiled" tree data > in > binary form, or similar.) Are you suggesting that C++ compilers convert the code to asm, then this asm code is convert to object code? > > Anyways, converting a C++ program into C and then compiling that C would > be inefficient, complicated and produce a less efficient result (because > the compiler cannot use its knowledge of the C++ syntax in order to better > optimize the code), so it would make little sense. > > (As an example, I'm guessing that exception handling is impossible to > convert into C code so that it would be as efficient as when compiling > C++ directly. C++ exceptions are designed so that if no exception is > thrown, the code will be as efficient as if no exceptions were in use > at all. I think this would be impossible to express in C.) Would the same not apply with asm? --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-07 12:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <3iavd7teopcqd2ar846trba102n1a3q27n@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #12117 |
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 17:37:14 -0000, "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message >news:4edf181e$0$2821$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... >> Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote: >>> On 06/12/2011 16:49, Sheky wrote: >>>> Could anyone please answer if every C++ programs get converted to >>>> equivalent C code during compilation ? Thank you. >>> >>> Some early C++ compilers worked this way but I suspect very few modern >>> C++ compilers produce C as an intermediate but rather create machine >>> code directly. >> >> Actually compilers, especially those supporting many languages (such as >> gcc) probably produce a kind of "intermediate" form (which is more or less >> common to all the languages that the compiler supports), which is then >> optimized and compiled into asm. (This intermediate form isn't a >> programming >> language per se, but usually some tokenized and "half-compiled" tree data >> in >> binary form, or similar.) > >Are you suggesting that C++ compilers convert the code to asm, then this asm >code is convert to object code? > Not exactly what he is suggesting, but in process of compiling by mainstream compilers (GCC, VC++, Borland, ...) there is a step in which preprocessed C++ code is converted to assembly. The assembler then converts the 'asm' code into object code. >> >> Anyways, converting a C++ program into C and then compiling that C would >> be inefficient, complicated and produce a less efficient result (because >> the compiler cannot use its knowledge of the C++ syntax in order to better >> optimize the code), so it would make little sense. >> >> (As an example, I'm guessing that exception handling is impossible to >> convert into C code so that it would be as efficient as when compiling >> C++ directly. C++ exceptions are designed so that if no exception is >> thrown, the code will be as efficient as if no exceptions were in use >> at all. I think this would be impossible to express in C.) > >Would the same not apply with asm? > Not really. Or rather there is no asm that couldn't be reverse-engineered back into an equivalent expression in another higher-level language. Thus while performing a C++ to C conversion at the source code level would likely lead to a complete mental collapse, a C++ to asm then asm to C would be doable - though definitely non-trivial. -ralph
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-07 11:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <17863313.475.1323284650416.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pril5> |
| In reply to | #12120 |
On Thursday, December 8, 2011 2:28:29 AM UTC+8, ralph wrote: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 17:37:14 -0000, "Paul" > > o...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > >"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message > >news:4edf181e$0$2821$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... > >> Leigh Johnston <le...@i42.co.uk> wrote: > >>> On 06/12/2011 16:49, Sheky wrote: > >>>> Could anyone please answer if every C++ programs get converted to > >>>> equivalent C code during compilation ? Thank you. > >>> > >>> Some early C++ compilers worked this way but I suspect very few modern > >>> C++ compilers produce C as an intermediate but rather create machine > >>> code directly. > >> > >> Actually compilers, especially those supporting many languages (such as > >> gcc) probably produce a kind of "intermediate" form (which is more or less > >> common to all the languages that the compiler supports), which is then > >> optimized and compiled into asm. (This intermediate form isn't a > >> programming > >> language per se, but usually some tokenized and "half-compiled" tree data > >> in > >> binary form, or similar.) > > > >Are you suggesting that C++ compilers convert the code to asm, then this asm > >code is convert to object code? > > What the byte code compiler in C++ and C are different? That is funny at all. A tree pass compiler in C++/C with local limited optimization only and can't be inserted with assembly code directly is weired. Objects are just decorated syntax sugars for structures and function pointers as stated clearly in the FAQ in this news group. > Not exactly what he is suggesting, but in process of compiling by > mainstream compilers (GCC, VC++, Borland, ...) there is a step in > which preprocessed C++ code is converted to assembly. The assembler > then converts the 'asm' code into object code. > > >> > >> Anyways, converting a C++ program into C and then compiling that C would > >> be inefficient, complicated and produce a less efficient result (because > >> the compiler cannot use its knowledge of the C++ syntax in order to better > >> optimize the code), so it would make little sense. > >> > >> (As an example, I'm guessing that exception handling is impossible to > >> convert into C code so that it would be as efficient as when compiling > >> C++ directly. C++ exceptions are designed so that if no exception is > >> thrown, the code will be as efficient as if no exceptions were in use > >> at all. I think this would be impossible to express in C.) > > > >Would the same not apply with asm? > > > > Not really. Or rather there is no asm that couldn't be > reverse-engineered back into an equivalent expression in another > higher-level language. > > Thus while performing a C++ to C conversion at the source code level > would likely lead to a complete mental collapse, a C++ to asm then asm > to C would be doable - though definitely non-trivial. > > -ralph
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-07 19:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnjdvh17.q8l.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #12120 |
On Wed, 2011-12-07, ralph wrote: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 17:37:14 -0000, "Paul" > <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> >>"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message >>news:4edf181e$0$2821$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... >>> Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On 06/12/2011 16:49, Sheky wrote: >>>>> Could anyone please answer if every C++ programs get converted to >>>>> equivalent C code during compilation ? Thank you. >>>> >>>> Some early C++ compilers worked this way but I suspect very few modern >>>> C++ compilers produce C as an intermediate but rather create machine >>>> code directly. >>> >>> Actually compilers, especially those supporting many languages (such as >>> gcc) probably produce a kind of "intermediate" form (which is more or less >>> common to all the languages that the compiler supports), which is then >>> optimized and compiled into asm. (This intermediate form isn't a >>> programming >>> language per se, but usually some tokenized and "half-compiled" tree data >>> in >>> binary form, or similar.) >> >>Are you suggesting that C++ compilers convert the code to asm, then this asm >>code is convert to object code? >> > > Not exactly what he is suggesting, but in process of compiling by > mainstream compilers (GCC, VC++, Borland, ...) there is a step in > which preprocessed C++ code is converted to assembly. The assembler > then converts the 'asm' code into object code. Are you sure of that? Going to (e.g.) x86 assembly language and then invoking the assembler to get x86 object code seems unnecessary complication. I don't see it mentioned in the "GCC internals" document. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-07 20:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jboj12$pha$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #12123 |
Jorgen Grahn wrote: > Are you sure of that? Going to (e.g.) x86 assembly language and then > invoking the assembler to get x86 object code seems unnecessary > complication. I don't see it mentioned in the "GCC internals" document. He is right. GCC is notoriously organized in front-ends, which translate any given programming language into an intermediate language which is supported by GCC (it appears to support at least 3 intermediate languages), and back-ends, which translate code written in those intermediate languages into machine code for a specific target platform. This approach may appear an "unnecessary complication" at first. Yet, this approach means, at least in theory, that you only need to write a new GCC front-end in order to get your new programming language to be supported in every platform supported by GCC, and it also means that you only need to write a new GCC back-end in order to offer support for each and every programming language supported by GCC in a brand new target architecture. Also, by relying on an intermediate implementation it is also possible to perform all sorts of code optimization on a single piece of data and yet reap benefits from that optimization when writing code in any programming language supported by GCC and when targetting any platform supported by GCC. Hope this helps, Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 19:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnje253s.q8l.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #12125 |
On Wed, 2011-12-07, Rui Maciel wrote: > Jorgen Grahn wrote: > >> Are you sure of that? Going to (e.g.) x86 assembly language and then >> invoking the assembler to get x86 object code seems unnecessary >> complication. I don't see it mentioned in the "GCC internals" document. > > He is right. GCC is notoriously organized in front-ends, which translate > any given programming language into an intermediate language which is > supported by GCC (it appears to support at least 3 intermediate languages), > and back-ends, which translate code written in those intermediate languages > into machine code for a specific target platform. > > This approach may appear an "unnecessary complication" at first. Yet, this > approach means, at least in theory, that you only need to write a new GCC > front-end in order to get your new programming language to be supported in > every platform supported by GCC, and it also means that you only need to > write a new GCC back-end in order to offer support for each and every > programming language supported by GCC in a brand new target architecture. > > Also, by relying on an intermediate implementation it is also possible to > perform all sorts of code optimization on a single piece of data and yet > reap benefits from that optimization when writing code in any programming > language supported by GCC and when targetting any platform supported by GCC. I am aware of all this, but passing through the stage "x86 assembly source code" (which was what someone suggested, in the part you snipped) brings none of the benefits you mention. I don't think it's done. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-07 14:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <7lkvd7pbrgcshisf7o7k2mod5ibppep5je@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #12120 |
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 12:28:29 -0600, ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> wrote: >On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 17:37:14 -0000, "Paul" ><pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> >>"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message >>news:4edf181e$0$2821$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... >>> Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On 06/12/2011 16:49, Sheky wrote: >>>>> Could anyone please answer if every C++ programs get converted to >>>>> equivalent C code during compilation ? Thank you. >>>> >>>> Some early C++ compilers worked this way but I suspect very few modern >>>> C++ compilers produce C as an intermediate but rather create machine >>>> code directly. >>> >>> Actually compilers, especially those supporting many languages (such as >>> gcc) probably produce a kind of "intermediate" form (which is more or less >>> common to all the languages that the compiler supports), which is then >>> optimized and compiled into asm. (This intermediate form isn't a >>> programming >>> language per se, but usually some tokenized and "half-compiled" tree data >>> in >>> binary form, or similar.) >> >>Are you suggesting that C++ compilers convert the code to asm, then this asm >>code is convert to object code? >> > >Not exactly what he is suggesting, but in process of compiling by >mainstream compilers (GCC, VC++, Borland, ...) there is a step in >which preprocessed C++ code is converted to assembly. The assembler >then converts the 'asm' code into object code. So do, some don't. IIRC, GCC, for example, does, MSVC does not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-07 16:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <islvd7di76qmvh4l5jg2pig0eb8me1dc6g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #12126 |
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 14:56:21 -0600, Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 12:28:29 -0600, ralph <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> >wrote: > >>On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 17:37:14 -0000, "Paul" >><pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message >>>news:4edf181e$0$2821$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... >>>> Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> On 06/12/2011 16:49, Sheky wrote: >>>>>> Could anyone please answer if every C++ programs get converted to >>>>>> equivalent C code during compilation ? Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> Some early C++ compilers worked this way but I suspect very few modern >>>>> C++ compilers produce C as an intermediate but rather create machine >>>>> code directly. >>>> >>>> Actually compilers, especially those supporting many languages (such as >>>> gcc) probably produce a kind of "intermediate" form (which is more or less >>>> common to all the languages that the compiler supports), which is then >>>> optimized and compiled into asm. (This intermediate form isn't a >>>> programming >>>> language per se, but usually some tokenized and "half-compiled" tree data >>>> in >>>> binary form, or similar.) >>> >>>Are you suggesting that C++ compilers convert the code to asm, then this asm >>>code is convert to object code? >>> >> >>Not exactly what he is suggesting, but in process of compiling by >>mainstream compilers (GCC, VC++, Borland, ...) there is a step in >>which preprocessed C++ code is converted to assembly. The assembler >>then converts the 'asm' code into object code. > > >So do, some don't. IIRC, GCC, for example, does, MSVC does not. Yeah, I did make is sound like they all output .ASM files. MSVC doesn't unless requested. But here is where we will likely get into a semantics war over "passes", "assembler", and "machine code". <g> First off consider what is "asm"? It is merely decorated machine code formatted into sections to be human or favorite Assembler readable and output to a file. If that is your definition, then MSVC skips that. What it produces from preprocessed source code is a formatted, binary equivalent - the .obj. That pass is called the "assembler". You can get MSVC to output formatted .ASM with a compiler switch. Not a very complex process as it just re-formats its internal binary representation to text. Furthermore, you can use that .ASM file as a full replacement in later operations. Which to me demonstrates the only difference is formatting. The GCC outputs a documented file, MSVC keeps its cards a little closer to the vest, but its there. They all go through an "assembly" phase. -ralph
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-07 22:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbop8v$7ui$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12120 |
"ralph" <nt_consulting64@yahoo.net> wrote in message news:3iavd7teopcqd2ar846trba102n1a3q27n@4ax.com... > On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 17:37:14 -0000, "Paul" > <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> >>"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message >>news:4edf181e$0$2821$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... >>> Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On 06/12/2011 16:49, Sheky wrote: >>>>> Could anyone please answer if every C++ programs get converted to >>>>> equivalent C code during compilation ? Thank you. >>>> >>>> Some early C++ compilers worked this way but I suspect very few modern >>>> C++ compilers produce C as an intermediate but rather create machine >>>> code directly. >>> >>> Actually compilers, especially those supporting many languages (such as >>> gcc) probably produce a kind of "intermediate" form (which is more or >>> less >>> common to all the languages that the compiler supports), which is then >>> optimized and compiled into asm. (This intermediate form isn't a >>> programming >>> language per se, but usually some tokenized and "half-compiled" tree >>> data >>> in >>> binary form, or similar.) >> >>Are you suggesting that C++ compilers convert the code to asm, then this >>asm >>code is convert to object code? >> > > Not exactly what he is suggesting, but in process of compiling by > mainstream compilers (GCC, VC++, Borland, ...) there is a step in > which preprocessed C++ code is converted to assembly. The assembler > then converts the 'asm' code into object code. You just said the same as what I said > >>> >>> Anyways, converting a C++ program into C and then compiling that C >>> would >>> be inefficient, complicated and produce a less efficient result (because >>> the compiler cannot use its knowledge of the C++ syntax in order to >>> better >>> optimize the code), so it would make little sense. >>> >>> (As an example, I'm guessing that exception handling is impossible to >>> convert into C code so that it would be as efficient as when compiling >>> C++ directly. C++ exceptions are designed so that if no exception is >>> thrown, the code will be as efficient as if no exceptions were in use >>> at all. I think this would be impossible to express in C.) >> >>Would the same not apply with asm? >> > > Not really. Or rather there is no asm that couldn't be > reverse-engineered back into an equivalent expression in another > higher-level language. > > Thus while performing a C++ to C conversion at the source code level > would likely lead to a complete mental collapse, a C++ to asm then asm > to C would be doable - though definitely non-trivial. > You can't implement C++ exception hadling in asm. Functions that throw in object files etc, I don't think its as simple as you make out. Anyways where do you stand on this , are you also suggesting that compilers simply wrap an assembler? --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 09:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4ee0833c$0$4394$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #12131 |
"Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > You can't implement C++ exception hadling in asm. That's equivalent to saying that you can't implement C++ exception handling in machine code. Or, in other words, that C++ cannot be compiled (at least not C++ that has exception handling).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 13:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbqemd$2mv8$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12154 |
"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message news:4ee0833c$0$4394$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... > "Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> You can't implement C++ exception hadling in asm. > > That's equivalent to saying that you can't implement C++ exception > handling in machine code. Or, in other words, that C++ cannot be compiled > (at least not C++ that has exception handling). asm is the closest thing to cpu intructions, what i call opcodes. And I more or less agree that anything you can do in C++ can be done in asm but I wouldn't be too fast to jump into an argument about that. But the main point is that the compilation process nothing to do with machine code, the compiler comiles to object code. So asm doesn't come into the equation. --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 06:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4ee1aa19$0$2805$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> |
| In reply to | #12167 |
"Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > "Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message > news:4ee0833c$0$4394$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... >> "Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> You can't implement C++ exception hadling in asm. >> >> That's equivalent to saying that you can't implement C++ exception >> handling in machine code. Or, in other words, that C++ cannot be compiled >> (at least not C++ that has exception handling). > > asm is the closest thing to cpu intructions, what i call opcodes. And I more > or less agree that anything you can do in C++ can be done in asm but I > wouldn't be too fast to jump into an argument about that. > > But the main point is that the compilation process nothing to do with > machine code, the compiler comiles to object code. So asm doesn't come into > the equation. Is that your way of saying "I was wrong, you are right"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-09 10:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbspef$2edl$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12232 |
"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message news:4ee1aa19$0$2805$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... > "Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> "Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message >> news:4ee0833c$0$4394$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... >>> "Paul" <pchrist <nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> You can't implement C++ exception hadling in asm. >>> >>> That's equivalent to saying that you can't implement C++ exception >>> handling in machine code. Or, in other words, that C++ cannot be >>> compiled >>> (at least not C++ that has exception handling). >> >> asm is the closest thing to cpu intructions, what i call opcodes. And I >> more >> or less agree that anything you can do in C++ can be done in asm but I >> wouldn't be too fast to jump into an argument about that. >> >> But the main point is that the compilation process nothing to do with >> machine code, the compiler comiles to object code. So asm doesn't come >> into >> the equation. > > Is that your way of saying "I was wrong, you are right"? No its my way of saying ... if you are trying to say that object code is machine code then you are wrong. --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 03:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <39385b47-31ee-4e0c-ac37-368b5291d354@m10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12120 |
On Dec 7, 6:28 pm, ralph <nt_consultin...@yahoo.net> wrote: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 17:37:14 -0000, "Paul" > <pchrist<nospam>o...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >"Juha Nieminen" <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote in message > >news:4edf181e$0$2821$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... > >> Leigh Johnston <le...@i42.co.uk> wrote: > >>> On 06/12/2011 16:49, Sheky wrote: > >>>> Could anyone please answer if every C++ programs get converted to > >>>> equivalent C code during compilation ? Thank you. no. Not all C++ compilers use C as an intermediate language. I understand very few do. It's slow and (I understand- IANA compiler writer) C isn't a particularly good intermediate language. > >>> Some early C++ compilers worked this way but I suspect very few modern > >>> C++ compilers produce C as an intermediate but rather create machine > >>> code directly. > > >> Actually compilers, especially those supporting many languages (such as > >> gcc) probably produce a kind of "intermediate" form (which is more or less > >> common to all the languages that the compiler supports), which is then > >> optimized and compiled into asm. or directly into machine code. > >> (This intermediate form isn't a > >> programming > >> language per se, but usually some tokenized and "half-compiled" tree data > >> in > >> binary form, or similar.) > > >Are you suggesting that C++ compilers convert the code to asm, then this asm > >code is convert to object code? > > Not exactly what he is suggesting, but in process of compiling by > mainstream compilers (GCC, VC++, Borland, ...) there is a step in > which preprocessed C++ code is converted to assembly. The assembler > then converts the 'asm' code into object code. > > > > >> Anyways, converting a C++ program into C and then compiling that C would > >> be inefficient, complicated and produce a less efficient result (because > >> the compiler cannot use its knowledge of the C++ syntax in order to better > >> optimize the code), so it would make little sense. > > >> (As an example, I'm guessing that exception handling is impossible to > >> convert into C code so that it would be as efficient as when compiling > >> C++ directly. C++ exceptions are designed so that if no exception is > >> thrown, the code will be as efficient as if no exceptions were in use > >> at all. I think this would be impossible to express in C.) > > >Would the same not apply with asm? > > Not really. Or rather there is no asm that couldn't be > reverse-engineered back into an equivalent expression in another > higher-level language. hardly. Compiling is a pretty information lossy process. The chances of recovering usable source from machine code is pretty slim. > Thus while performing a C++ to C conversion at the source code level > would likely lead to a complete mental collapse, a C++ to asm then asm > to C would be doable - though definitely non-trivial. I'm not convinced disassembly is easier than compiling C++ into C. We know people can write C++ compilers there are loads around. C-Front specifically compiled into C. Disassembly is a Hard problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul" <pchrist<nospam>or@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 13:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbqerp$2n4j$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #12161 |
"Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:39385b47-31ee-4e0c-ac37-368b5291d354@m10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com... On Dec 7, 6:28 pm, ralph <nt_consultin...@yahoo.net> wrote: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 17:37:14 -0000, "Paul" > <pchrist<nospam>o...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >"Juha Nieminen" <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote in message > >news:4edf181e$0$2821$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi... > >> Leigh Johnston <le...@i42.co.uk> wrote: > >>> On 06/12/2011 16:49, Sheky wrote: > >>>> Could anyone please answer if every C++ programs get converted to > >>>> equivalent C code during compilation ? Thank you. no. Not all C++ compilers use C as an intermediate language. I understand very few do. It's slow and (I understand- IANA compiler writer) C isn't a particularly good intermediate language. > >>> Some early C++ compilers worked this way but I suspect very few modern > >>> C++ compilers produce C as an intermediate but rather create machine > >>> code directly. > > >> Actually compilers, especially those supporting many languages (such as > >> gcc) probably produce a kind of "intermediate" form (which is more or > >> less > >> common to all the languages that the compiler supports), which is then > >> optimized and compiled into asm. or directly into machine code. --------------------------------------------------- Compilers to not output machine code or asm , a compilers output is object code. Is this an other idiot thats gonna try and argue that machine code is object code ? --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 13:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbqfn2$lao$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #12168 |
wrote:
> Compilers to not output machine code or asm , a compilers output is object
> code.
rui@Kubuntu:tmp$ cat main.c
int main()
{
return 0;
}
rui@Kubuntu:tmp$ gcc -S main.c -o main.s
rui@Kubuntu:tmp$ cat main.s
.file "main.c"
.text
.globl main
.type main, @function
main:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
pushq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
.cfi_offset 6, -16
movq %rsp, %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa_register 6
movl $0, %eax
popq %rbp
.cfi_def_cfa 7, 8
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.size main, .-main
.ident "GCC: (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.1-9ubuntu3) 4.6.1"
.section .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
> Is this an other idiot thats gonna try and argue that machine code is
> object code ?
What's your definition of machine code? And what's your definition of
object code?
Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web