Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #96073 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-08 22:17 +0800 |
| Last post | 2016-11-08 18:25 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 296 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:17 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 14:25 +0000
[OI] chat "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:26 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:29 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-08 20:48 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:51 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-08 21:12 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 20:43 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 13:20 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:04 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:04 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 14:30 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-12 01:25 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-11 17:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 07:52 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-12 15:18 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:00 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:33 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 22:56 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 23:40 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:54 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:47 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:46 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 07:19 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:46 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-08 23:00 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 11:30 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 11:14 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:15 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 13:59 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 03:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 05:44 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 03:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:19 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 07:59 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 13:13 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-11-09 14:06 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 14:46 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 08:33 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 17:28 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:22 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 10:55 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 00:01 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 17:11 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 13:37 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:16 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 22:36 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 23:40 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-10 08:49 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 14:02 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 05:40 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 15:47 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:32 +0300
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:34 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 00:43 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 20:00 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-09 13:25 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 11:18 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:57 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 12:10 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 20:32 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 22:56 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 22:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 23:16 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 22:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:29 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 21:35 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-09 21:55 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:49 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 11:31 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 10:42 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:03 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-11-10 15:37 +0300
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 08:13 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:22 +0300
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 12:29 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:02 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 20:24 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-10 12:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-10 12:36 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:43 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 21:06 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 23:12 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 22:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 14:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:10 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 21:28 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-09 21:32 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:36 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 07:10 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:32 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 08:05 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 08:06 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 08:14 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 08:33 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 09:20 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 02:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 10:29 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 02:58 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 11:09 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:25 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:29 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 21:59 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:10 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:27 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 22:42 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:46 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-10 16:27 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 22:47 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-10 19:29 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-11 09:17 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 13:45 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:58 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:31 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 21:41 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:57 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:16 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 13:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:43 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 21:58 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 14:28 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 14:47 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 22:51 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:27 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 15:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:38 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:46 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:51 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 22:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:18 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 05:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-14 00:27 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-14 21:24 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-14 09:45 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 21:54 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:19 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 05:47 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:22 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 07:01 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:49 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:02 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 11:10 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:17 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 06:56 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:05 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 08:09 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-11 16:56 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 07:37 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 08:07 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 22:43 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 09:50 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-10 11:43 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:36 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-10 15:05 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 16:25 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:14 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:23 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 23:01 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:35 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 08:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 20:30 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 12:20 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 13:48 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 22:53 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 14:38 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-11 09:52 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-11 06:09 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-11 21:54 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-11 14:10 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-12 14:17 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat <flatfinger@casperkitty.com> - 2016-11-12 10:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 19:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-12 16:13 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-13 00:28 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat <flatfinger@casperkitty.com> - 2016-11-12 17:36 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-13 10:20 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-13 14:37 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 22:42 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-13 18:26 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:08 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-13 15:52 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:10 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-14 07:33 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 18:42 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-14 11:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 19:49 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-14 12:24 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-14 12:32 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-16 08:18 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-16 08:50 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-17 12:02 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-17 12:22 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-16 10:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 10:52 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-12 14:28 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-09 13:27 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-11-09 23:43 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 17:57 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 21:26 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:39 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 22:54 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 15:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:50 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 13:44 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:07 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 14:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:26 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 14:44 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 14:48 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 15:34 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 15:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 16:17 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 16:18 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 16:24 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-08 19:59 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-09 15:44 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 00:51 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-09 15:59 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-10 16:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-11 14:41 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:55 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:21 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:32 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-11 16:11 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-12 11:12 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 20:03 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 20:21 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:30 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-12 21:51 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:16 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-12 23:04 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 14:12 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:05 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 14:43 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 14:49 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-12 14:33 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 22:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-12 18:14 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-13 00:12 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-13 11:38 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 00:44 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-14 11:45 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-14 09:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 14:14 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 22:59 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 19:11 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-14 15:40 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 20:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-12 17:20 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-09 19:49 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-10 16:14 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:28 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 00:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-12 11:40 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-12 11:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 20:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:23 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-13 11:46 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-10 16:22 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-11 16:52 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 14:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 00:13 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 15:46 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-08 20:04 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 03:23 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 08:01 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 12:27 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 22:32 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:43 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:30 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 07:35 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:12 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 11:19 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:46 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:01 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-11 16:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 08:36 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 17:41 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:58 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 08:10 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 10:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 14:21 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:28 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-08 22:47 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-10 09:52 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 07:33 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 14:03 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 08:15 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 14:47 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 22:55 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:44 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 18:18 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 18:25 -0800
Page 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 19:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87vavw1l9p.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #96157 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 08/11/2016 22:33, Gareth Owen wrote: >> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: >> >>> Le 08/11/2016 à 21:12, David Brown a écrit : >>> >>>> C++ is the obvious choice if you want a fast compiler. >>> >>> What? >>> >>> It is incredible the things that C++ heads will tell people? A c++ >>> compiler is incredibly slow. lcc-win is 4 or 5 times faster than gcc >>> even when gcc is just compiling C. >> >> GCC isn't written in C++. > > Apparently they moved to C++ a few years ago. There's very little C++ in there though. The vast majority of it is a slightly weird idiomatic C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 15:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <v9672ctigvkiamdfj78flqv7k8dptmbkd1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #96215 |
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 19:54:58 +0000, Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote: >BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> On 08/11/2016 22:33, Gareth Owen wrote: >>> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: >>> >>>> Le 08/11/2016 à 21:12, David Brown a écrit : >>>> >>>>> C++ is the obvious choice if you want a fast compiler. >>>> >>>> What? >>>> >>>> It is incredible the things that C++ heads will tell people? A c++ >>>> compiler is incredibly slow. lcc-win is 4 or 5 times faster than gcc >>>> even when gcc is just compiling C. >>> >>> GCC isn't written in C++. >> >> Apparently they moved to C++ a few years ago. > >There's very little C++ in there though. The vast majority of it is a >slightly weird idiomatic C. It was that before they moved to C++.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 06:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <878tsrzvb2.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #96234 |
Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>There's very little C++ in there though. The vast majority of it is a >>slightly weird idiomatic C. > > It was that before they moved to C++. No. The vast majority of the code is still basically C. They just compile it with g++.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 07:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o01oj3$o8d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96261 |
On 11/10/2016 01:46 AM, Gareth Owen wrote: > Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes: > >>> >>> There's very little C++ in there though. The vast majority of it is a >>> slightly weird idiomatic C. >> >> It was that before they moved to C++. > > No. The vast majority of the code is still basically C. > They just compile it with g++. You said that the code is currently, after switching to g++, "slightly weird idiomatic C". He said that it was "slightly weird idiomatic C" even before the switch. You say "No." and then describe the code after the switch (which he wasn't talking about) as "still basically C". That does not in any way contradict his claim that the code before the switch was also "slightly weird idiomatic C". This leaves me confused - what aspect of his statement were you saying "No" to?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 06:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e94c5bc6-b254-42d6-8695-8d8d8fb281ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96300 |
On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 12:19:20 PM UTC, James Kuyper wrote: > On 11/10/2016 01:46 AM, Gareth Owen wrote: > > Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes: > > > >>> > >>> There's very little C++ in there though. The vast majority of it is a > >>> slightly weird idiomatic C. > >> > >> It was that before they moved to C++. > > > > No. The vast majority of the code is still basically C. > > They just compile it with g++. > > You said that the code is currently, after switching to g++, "slightly > weird idiomatic C". He said that it was "slightly weird idiomatic C" > even before the switch. You say "No." and then describe the code after > the switch (which he wasn't talking about) as "still basically C". That > does not in any way contradict his claim that the code before the switch > was also "slightly weird idiomatic C". This leaves me confused - what > aspect of his statement were you saying "No" to? I interpreted "moved to C++" as "ported it to C++" - i.e. "rewrote the weird C as (presumably less weird) C++". I was saying no to that. I see now that that might not be what he meant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 23:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvtler$gp9$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #96153 |
On 2016-11-08, Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote: > jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: > >> Le 08/11/2016 à 21:12, David Brown a écrit : >> >>> C++ is the obvious choice if you want a fast compiler. >> >> What? >> >> It is incredible the things that C++ heads will tell people? A c++ >> compiler is incredibly slow. lcc-win is 4 or 5 times faster than gcc >> even when gcc is just compiling C. > > GCC isn't written in C++. They are porting it to C++, though. -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 11:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvutra$30v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96153 |
On 08/11/16 23:33, Gareth Owen wrote: > jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: > >> Le 08/11/2016 à 21:12, David Brown a écrit : >> >>> C++ is the obvious choice if you want a fast compiler. >> >> What? >> >> It is incredible the things that C++ heads will tell people? A c++ >> compiler is incredibly slow. lcc-win is 4 or 5 times faster than gcc >> even when gcc is just compiling C. > > GCC isn't written in C++. > gcc was originally written C. A fair number of years ago they moved to "C++ compatible subset of C". Now it is a mixture of C and C++ (I am not sure if the C code is compiled as C++, but it is certainly valid to do so). They switched to C++ because it was a much more productive language for the kind of code needed to keep advancing the compiler. The other big modern compiler project is llvm/clang - which is written in C++. Clearly, you /can/ write a C compiler in C. The question is, if one were planning to write a new C compiler from scratch, without bias based on which languages you are familiar with and what existing code you have written (but taking into account easily available common libraries), would C be a sensible choice of development language for your compiler?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 11:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvv0ea$dga$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96174 |
On 09/11/2016 10:30, David Brown wrote: > On 08/11/16 23:33, Gareth Owen wrote: >> GCC isn't written in C++. >> > > gcc was originally written C. A fair number of years ago they moved to > "C++ compatible subset of C". Now it is a mixture of C and C++ (I am > not sure if the C code is compiled as C++, but it is certainly valid to > do so). > > They switched to C++ because it was a much more productive language for > the kind of code needed to keep advancing the compiler. 'Productive' presumably doesn't mean small. Last time I looked at gcc sources, it was 45,000 files. Now 6.2 is 96,000 files, including 41,000 .c files and 10,000 .h files. (And assorted other languages including .m4 and .py). > The other big modern compiler project is llvm/clang - which is written > in C++. llvm is not a small product either. C++ seems to be necessary when working with ginormous applications (if it is actually use for C++; I saw only 100 .cpp files). > Clearly, you /can/ write a C compiler in C. The question is, if one > were planning to write a new C compiler from scratch, without bias based > on which languages you are familiar with and what existing code you have > written (but taking into account easily available common libraries), > would C be a sensible choice of development language for your compiler? An individual writing a compiler from scratch is unlikely to attempt anything on the above scale. So the language is less important, unless they choose to work with something like llvm which might use C++ interfaces (but then it's debatable whether that still counts as 'writing a compiler'). But, if this is a C compiler, then there is an attraction in it being able to compile itself (it's a useful test), which is not possible if written in C++. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 19:15 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvv0ga$adr$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96177 |
On 9/11/2016 7:14 PM, BartC wrote: > An individual writing a compiler from scratch is unlikely to attempt > anything on the above scale. So the language is less important, unless > they choose to work with something like llvm which might use C++ > interfaces (but then it's debatable whether that still counts as > 'writing a compiler'). You can turn the C compiler to operate a robot or maybe a motor if not an actuator. Remember why compilers produce assembly if not machine codes?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 13:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvv6id$3g5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96177 |
On 09/11/16 12:14, BartC wrote: > On 09/11/2016 10:30, David Brown wrote: >> On 08/11/16 23:33, Gareth Owen wrote: > >>> GCC isn't written in C++. >>> >> >> gcc was originally written C. A fair number of years ago they moved to >> "C++ compatible subset of C". Now it is a mixture of C and C++ (I am >> not sure if the C code is compiled as C++, but it is certainly valid to >> do so). >> >> They switched to C++ because it was a much more productive language for >> the kind of code needed to keep advancing the compiler. > > 'Productive' presumably doesn't mean small. Last time I looked at gcc > sources, it was 45,000 files. Now 6.2 is 96,000 files, including 41,000 > .c files and 10,000 .h files. (And assorted other languages including > .m4 and .py). > No, "productive" does not mean "small". If the gcc developers thought small source code was the main objective for their work, then they would not have used either C or C++ for development - they would have picked a language that does more with fewer lines of code (such as APL). "Productive" means being able to make the compiler do more, with less effort for the compiler development team. They - quite rightly - feel that the size of the source base is of no direct concern here. (The readability and maintainability of the code base is important, of course.) >> The other big modern compiler project is llvm/clang - which is written >> in C++. > > llvm is not a small product either. C++ seems to be necessary when > working with ginormous applications (if it is actually use for C++; I > saw only 100 .cpp files). Yes, of course. A powerful modern compiler suite is a very large project - we are not talking about a little compiler for your private little languages. Both gcc and llvm are huge projects, covering multiple source programming languages, multiple target processors, multiple operating systems (both hosts and targets), with arrays of warning messages, analysis, optimisations, debugging features, test suites, libraries, and so on. Could the same features be implemented in a smaller code base? Of course they could. The projects have grown in scope and features over the years, with large numbers of contributors from different places, and that can never lead to the most compact source code. But so what? And yes, the size of the projects is one of the reasons why C++ is a better choice than C. One of the original goals of C++ was to be more suitable for larger projects, and with its more sophisticated scoping (classes, namespaces, etc.) it /is/ better for large projects. Future versions of C++ with modules of some sort will be even better. > >> Clearly, you /can/ write a C compiler in C. The question is, if one >> were planning to write a new C compiler from scratch, without bias based >> on which languages you are familiar with and what existing code you have >> written (but taking into account easily available common libraries), >> would C be a sensible choice of development language for your compiler? > > An individual writing a compiler from scratch is unlikely to attempt > anything on the above scale. So the language is less important, unless > they choose to work with something like llvm which might use C++ > interfaces (but then it's debatable whether that still counts as > 'writing a compiler'). An individual writing a compiler from scratch should be more concerned with getting enough features in the compiler with the least effort themselves. Thus they should use a language that makes it easy to write code with string handling, symbol tables, file parsing, etc. They should also make use of existing code and libraries for the bits they are not interested in - this may also influence the choice of language. The last thing on their minds should be the speed of compilation of their chosen language, the speed of their compiler, or the number of files in their compiler. > > But, if this is a C compiler, then there is an attraction in it being > able to compile itself (it's a useful test), which is not possible if > written in C++. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 03:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0c4c02d2-69b2-4601-a1b1-15310fe20fe4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96174 |
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:30:41 AM UTC-2, David Brown wrote: > On 08/11/16 23:33, Gareth Owen wrote: > > jacobnavia writes: > > > >> Le 08/11/2016 à 21:12, David Brown a écrit : > >> > >>> C++ is the obvious choice if you want a fast compiler. > >> > >> What? > >> > >> It is incredible the things that C++ heads will tell people? A c++ > >> compiler is incredibly slow. lcc-win is 4 or 5 times faster than gcc > >> even when gcc is just compiling C. > > > > GCC isn't written in C++. > > > > gcc was originally written C. A fair number of years ago they moved to > "C++ compatible subset of C". Now it is a mixture of C and C++ (I am > not sure if the C code is compiled as C++, but it is certainly valid to > do so). > > They switched to C++ because it was a much more productive language for > the kind of code needed to keep advancing the compiler. > > The other big modern compiler project is llvm/clang - which is written > in C++. > > Clearly, you /can/ write a C compiler in C. The question is, if one > were planning to write a new C compiler from scratch, without bias based > on which languages you are familiar with and what existing code you have > written (but taking into account easily available common libraries), > would C be a sensible choice of development language for your compiler? For others reasons not necessarily "how easy, how productive, efficient" I think any general language should be compiled with it s own language. C++ compiler should/could be made with C++, otherwise is like "I recommend you to use this, but I don't use it". I believed (I am not too familiar with those languages) that.. Rust compiler is done in Rust (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust) Swift in C++ https://github.com/apple/swift Clang in C++ Go in Go. https://github.com/golang/go Typescript in Typescript https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript ... So I think it's also natural C compiler in C. Unless, you think C language as an portable assembler and don't recommend it for humans. I see the C language as a good choice for high level programming because the important parts (basic and general) are there without much special rules.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 05:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <r5262c5lrtct6mgj2qpqupkuif591vgtmt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #96178 |
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 03:15:27 -0800 (PST), Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:30:41 AM UTC-2, David Brown wrote: >> On 08/11/16 23:33, Gareth Owen wrote: >> > jacobnavia writes: >> > >> >> Le 08/11/2016 à 21:12, David Brown a écrit : >> >> >> >>> C++ is the obvious choice if you want a fast compiler. >> >> >> >> What? >> >> >> >> It is incredible the things that C++ heads will tell people? A c++ >> >> compiler is incredibly slow. lcc-win is 4 or 5 times faster than gcc >> >> even when gcc is just compiling C. >> > >> > GCC isn't written in C++. >> > >> >> gcc was originally written C. A fair number of years ago they moved to >> "C++ compatible subset of C". Now it is a mixture of C and C++ (I am >> not sure if the C code is compiled as C++, but it is certainly valid to >> do so). >> >> They switched to C++ because it was a much more productive language for >> the kind of code needed to keep advancing the compiler. >> >> The other big modern compiler project is llvm/clang - which is written >> in C++. >> >> Clearly, you /can/ write a C compiler in C. The question is, if one >> were planning to write a new C compiler from scratch, without bias based >> on which languages you are familiar with and what existing code you have >> written (but taking into account easily available common libraries), >> would C be a sensible choice of development language for your compiler? > > >For others reasons not necessarily "how easy, how productive, efficient" I think any general language should be compiled with it s own language. C++ compiler should/could be made with C++, otherwise is like "I recommend you to use this, but I don't use it". > >I believed (I am not too familiar with those languages) that.. > >Rust compiler is done in Rust (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust) > >Swift in C++ >https://github.com/apple/swift > >Clang in C++ > >Go in Go. >https://github.com/golang/go > >Typescript in Typescript >https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript > >... > >So I think it's also natural C compiler in C. Unless, you think C language as an portable assembler and don't recommend it for humans. > >I see the C language as a good choice for high level programming because the important parts (basic and general) are there without much special rules. No, that's wrong. Compilers should be written in languages well suited to the writing of compilers. There's really very little "low level" about what a compiler does, the tiny bit of needed bit manipulation is isolated to the end of the code generation step (assuming you're actually emitting binary). Of course "suitability" encompasses rather more than just the technical features of the candidate implementation language: availability (on both current and possible future targets), maturity, availability of tool chains, likely future(s), not to mention the availability of experienced staff. Many of the non-technical issues argue for C (or quite often these days, C++). If nothing else, I expect a C (or C++) compiler to be available on whatever platform I might like to host my compiler on a decade from now. And I know I can almost any tool I might want, and plenty of developers too. While bootstrapping is much loved in discussion, in reality very few compilers are self-hosting. Just consider GCC - only *one* of the languages supported by GCC is actually self-hosting (there are eight mainstream ones, and a whole bunch of non-mainstream ones). C and C++ compilers are the relatively rare exception where a reasonable fraction of implementations are actually self hosting. That being said people have also picked very odd languages for writing compilers. I know of (self hosting) Cobol and Basic compilers, and Fortran used to be a fairly popular implementation language as well (for many of the same, non-technical, reasons C is now).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 03:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cc2525fe-7cb0-4706-bb67-1f34aeb66417@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96181 |
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 9:44:26 AM UTC-2, robert...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 03:15:27 -0800 (PST), Thiago Adams > wrote: > > >On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:30:41 AM UTC-2, David Brown wrote: > >> On 08/11/16 23:33, Gareth Owen wrote: > >> > jacobnavia writes: > >> > > >> >> Le 08/11/2016 à 21:12, David Brown a écrit : > >> >> > >> >>> C++ is the obvious choice if you want a fast compiler. > >> >> > >> >> What? > >> >> > >> >> It is incredible the things that C++ heads will tell people? A c++ > >> >> compiler is incredibly slow. lcc-win is 4 or 5 times faster than gcc > >> >> even when gcc is just compiling C. > >> > > >> > GCC isn't written in C++. > >> > > >> > >> gcc was originally written C. A fair number of years ago they moved to > >> "C++ compatible subset of C". Now it is a mixture of C and C++ (I am > >> not sure if the C code is compiled as C++, but it is certainly valid to > >> do so). > >> > >> They switched to C++ because it was a much more productive language for > >> the kind of code needed to keep advancing the compiler. > >> > >> The other big modern compiler project is llvm/clang - which is written > >> in C++. > >> > >> Clearly, you /can/ write a C compiler in C. The question is, if one > >> were planning to write a new C compiler from scratch, without bias based > >> on which languages you are familiar with and what existing code you have > >> written (but taking into account easily available common libraries), > >> would C be a sensible choice of development language for your compiler? > > > > > >For others reasons not necessarily "how easy, how productive, efficient" I think any general language should be compiled with it s own language. C++ compiler should/could be made with C++, otherwise is like "I recommend you to use this, but I don't use it". > > > >I believed (I am not too familiar with those languages) that.. > > > >Rust compiler is done in Rust (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust) > > > >Swift in C++ > >https://github.com/apple/swift > > > >Clang in C++ > > > >Go in Go. > >https://github.com/golang/go > > > >Typescript in Typescript > >https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript > > > >... > > > >So I think it's also natural C compiler in C. Unless, you think C language as an portable assembler and don't recommend it for humans. > > > >I see the C language as a good choice for high level programming because the important parts (basic and general) are there without much special rules. > > > > No, that's wrong. Compilers should be written in languages well > suited to the writing of compilers. There's really very little "low > level" about what a compiler does, the tiny bit of needed bit > manipulation is isolated to the end of the code generation step > (assuming you're actually emitting binary). Although you think it is wrong, I gave you 3 cases Rust, Go, Typescript where the compiler uses it own language. But, only the programmers of these language knows the reason for the decision. I cannot say if they are wrong. Swift is the exception, maybe someday they will move the compiler to swift (I don't know) It's not about how level (I agree) typescript is a script language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 15:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <0h472ctbbpbo3b89nup6333k7qk0rli9qv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #96183 |
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 03:57:52 -0800 (PST), Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 9:44:26 AM UTC-2, robert...@yahoo.com wrote: >> On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 03:15:27 -0800 (PST), Thiago Adams >> wrote: >> >> >On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:30:41 AM UTC-2, David Brown wrote: >> >> On 08/11/16 23:33, Gareth Owen wrote: >> >> > jacobnavia writes: >> >> > >> >> >> Le 08/11/2016 à 21:12, David Brown a écrit : >> >> >> >> >> >>> C++ is the obvious choice if you want a fast compiler. >> >> >> >> >> >> What? >> >> >> >> >> >> It is incredible the things that C++ heads will tell people? A c++ >> >> >> compiler is incredibly slow. lcc-win is 4 or 5 times faster than gcc >> >> >> even when gcc is just compiling C. >> >> > >> >> > GCC isn't written in C++. >> >> > >> >> >> >> gcc was originally written C. A fair number of years ago they moved to >> >> "C++ compatible subset of C". Now it is a mixture of C and C++ (I am >> >> not sure if the C code is compiled as C++, but it is certainly valid to >> >> do so). >> >> >> >> They switched to C++ because it was a much more productive language for >> >> the kind of code needed to keep advancing the compiler. >> >> >> >> The other big modern compiler project is llvm/clang - which is written >> >> in C++. >> >> >> >> Clearly, you /can/ write a C compiler in C. The question is, if one >> >> were planning to write a new C compiler from scratch, without bias based >> >> on which languages you are familiar with and what existing code you have >> >> written (but taking into account easily available common libraries), >> >> would C be a sensible choice of development language for your compiler? >> > >> > >> >For others reasons not necessarily "how easy, how productive, efficient" I think any general language should be compiled with it s own language. C++ compiler should/could be made with C++, otherwise is like "I recommend you to use this, but I don't use it". >> > >> >I believed (I am not too familiar with those languages) that.. >> > >> >Rust compiler is done in Rust (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust) >> > >> >Swift in C++ >> >https://github.com/apple/swift >> > >> >Clang in C++ >> > >> >Go in Go. >> >https://github.com/golang/go >> > >> >Typescript in Typescript >> >https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript >> > >> >... >> > >> >So I think it's also natural C compiler in C. Unless, you think C language as an portable assembler and don't recommend it for humans. >> > >> >I see the C language as a good choice for high level programming because the important parts (basic and general) are there without much special rules. >> >> >> >> No, that's wrong. Compilers should be written in languages well >> suited to the writing of compilers. There's really very little "low >> level" about what a compiler does, the tiny bit of needed bit >> manipulation is isolated to the end of the code generation step >> (assuming you're actually emitting binary). > > >Although you think it is wrong, I gave you 3 cases Rust, Go, Typescript where the compiler uses it own language. >But, only the programmers of these language knows the reason for the decision. I cannot say if they are wrong. >Swift is the exception, maybe someday they will move the compiler to swift (I don't know) > >It's not about how level (I agree) typescript is a script language. I only said it was relatively rare, and I even mentioned that I knew of self-hosted Cobol and Basic examples. The point though, is that it actually is pretty rare, and there's a whole lot more talk about the whole self-hosting/bootstrapping thing than actual practice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 07:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvv6i9$3fn$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #96181 |
On 11/9/2016 6:44 AM, Robert Wessel wrote: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 03:15:27 -0800 (PST), Thiago Adams > <thiago.adams@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:30:41 AM UTC-2, David Brown wrote: >>> On 08/11/16 23:33, Gareth Owen wrote: >>>> jacobnavia writes: >>>> >>>>> Le 08/11/2016 à 21:12, David Brown a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> C++ is the obvious choice if you want a fast compiler. >>>>> >>>>> What? >>>>> >>>>> It is incredible the things that C++ heads will tell people? A c++ >>>>> compiler is incredibly slow. lcc-win is 4 or 5 times faster than gcc >>>>> even when gcc is just compiling C. >>>> >>>> GCC isn't written in C++. >>>> >>> >>> gcc was originally written C. A fair number of years ago they moved to >>> "C++ compatible subset of C". Now it is a mixture of C and C++ (I am >>> not sure if the C code is compiled as C++, but it is certainly valid to >>> do so). >>> >>> They switched to C++ because it was a much more productive language for >>> the kind of code needed to keep advancing the compiler. >>> >>> The other big modern compiler project is llvm/clang - which is written >>> in C++. >>> >>> Clearly, you /can/ write a C compiler in C. The question is, if one >>> were planning to write a new C compiler from scratch, without bias based >>> on which languages you are familiar with and what existing code you have >>> written (but taking into account easily available common libraries), >>> would C be a sensible choice of development language for your compiler? >> >> >> For others reasons not necessarily "how easy, how productive, efficient" I think any general language should be compiled with it s own language. C++ compiler should/could be made with C++, otherwise is like "I recommend you to use this, but I don't use it". >> >> I believed (I am not too familiar with those languages) that.. >> >> Rust compiler is done in Rust (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust) >> >> Swift in C++ >> https://github.com/apple/swift >> >> Clang in C++ >> >> Go in Go. >> https://github.com/golang/go >> >> Typescript in Typescript >> https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript >> >> ... >> >> So I think it's also natural C compiler in C. Unless, you think C language as an portable assembler and don't recommend it for humans. >> >> I see the C language as a good choice for high level programming because the important parts (basic and general) are there without much special rules. > > > > No, that's wrong. Compilers should be written in languages well > suited to the writing of compilers. There's really very little "low > level" about what a compiler does, the tiny bit of needed bit > manipulation is isolated to the end of the code generation step > (assuming you're actually emitting binary). Of course "suitability" > encompasses rather more than just the technical features of the > candidate implementation language: availability (on both current and > possible future targets), maturity, availability of tool chains, > likely future(s), not to mention the availability of experienced > staff. > > Many of the non-technical issues argue for C (or quite often these > days, C++). If nothing else, I expect a C (or C++) compiler to be > available on whatever platform I might like to host my compiler on a > decade from now. And I know I can almost any tool I might want, and > plenty of developers too. > > While bootstrapping is much loved in discussion, in reality very few > compilers are self-hosting. Just consider GCC - only *one* of the > languages supported by GCC is actually self-hosting (there are eight > mainstream ones, and a whole bunch of non-mainstream ones). C and C++ > compilers are the relatively rare exception where a reasonable > fraction of implementations are actually self hosting. > > That being said people have also picked very odd languages for writing > compilers. I know of (self hosting) Cobol and Basic compilers, and > Fortran used to be a fairly popular implementation language as well > (for many of the same, non-technical, reasons C is now). > I agree completely. And I would hate to try to write a Fortran compiler in Fortran, or a COBOL compiler in COBOL. Although back in the 80's someone did write a Basic compiler for MS-DOS in Basic. There are different languages because each language has its advantages and its disadvantages. Not every language is suitable for writing compilers. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 13:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvv7c9$6i2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96184 |
On 09/11/2016 12:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > There are different languages because each language has its advantages > and its disadvantages. Not every language is suitable for writing > compilers. A compiler is one of the least demanding applications. You need a language that can take input from a file, do some processing, and output another file. In other words, practically any language will do! -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 14:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvvagn$18ou$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #96189 |
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 13:13:09 +0000, BartC wrote: > On 09/11/2016 12:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> There are different languages because each language has its advantages >> and its disadvantages. Not every language is suitable for writing >> compilers. > > A compiler is one of the least demanding applications. > > You need a language that can take input from a file, do some processing, > and output another file. Isn't that what most programs do? Take input, process it a bit, show output? That even goes for huge projects like weather prediction, or on a smaller scale, 3D rendering programs like Blender. Input > process > output says absolutely nothing about system loads or programming difficulty. Writing a compiler that literally translates the programmer's code to binary might be fairly easy. But when you factor in a good dose of error checking and optimization, things get more difficult VERY quickly. > In other words, practically any language will do! True, but that doesn't mean any language will do it equally fast. Or that source code in any language is as easily adaptable or expandable if you want the compiler to create code for a new architecture or add new instruction to the programming language. The best tool depends on: - the languages available on your programming computers, - the requirements you set for the compiler, - in which languages you have the required knowledge available (or easily acquirable) to write a compiler. And not necessarily in that order. -- Robert Spanjaard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 14:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvvcs1$r2t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96192 |
On 09/11/2016 14:06, Robert Spanjaard wrote: > On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 13:13:09 +0000, BartC wrote: > >> On 09/11/2016 12:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >>> There are different languages because each language has its advantages >>> and its disadvantages. Not every language is suitable for writing >>> compilers. >> >> A compiler is one of the least demanding applications. >> >> You need a language that can take input from a file, do some processing, >> and output another file. > > Isn't that what most programs do? Take input, process it a bit, show > output? That even goes for huge projects like weather prediction, or on a > smaller scale, 3D rendering programs like Blender. Input > process > > output says absolutely nothing about system loads or programming > difficulty. That would be true if these programs are in the form of console applications that involve no more ambitious user interaction that line-based input, and serial text output. Move a bit beyond that and there are all sorts of platform dependent issues - key-at-a-time input, printing at random screen locations, accessing functions in shared libraries, using a mouse, starting to do graphics, maybe working with networks, even figuring out how to communicate with foreign functions. All sorts of untidy little practical details. But a compiler is a classic application where most of the computation is internal and there is little or no interaction. Even something as basic as a text-mode screen editor is quite different. Writing a compiler that literally translates the programmer's > code to binary might be fairly easy. But when you factor in a good dose > of error checking and optimization, things get more difficult VERY > quickly. There might be complicated algorithms involved, but I don't think it needs advanced language features. >> In other words, practically any language will do! > > True, but that doesn't mean any language will do it equally fast. For a few years I've been using compilers that are interpreted. They work at some 15,000 to 30,000 lines per second (somewhat faster than gcc actually!). To entirely re-compile the compiler for the language I used in place of C, takes around 2 seconds I think. If you work with modules of a few thousands lines each, it takes a fraction of second to compile. (And I've been working on a fully-compiled version. There the speed is frightening - up to 1Mlps or more), and I'm still working out how best to use it.) Anyway, in 2016, the work that a compiler has to is magnitudes below the capacity of the hardware. If a compiler build system is slow, then it's due to being too large and too complicated, not helped by typical applications being large and sprawling too with a million dependencies. The problem is management not the language. (gcc is written in C or C++, and it crawls.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 08:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <486c3aa4-ad18-4216-8dce-b1a2b1f5477a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96192 |
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:06:24 AM UTC-6, Robert Spanjaard wrote: > On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 13:13:09 +0000, BartC wrote: > > You need a language that can take input from a file, do some processing, > > and output another file. > > Isn't that what most programs do? Take input, process it a bit, show > output? That even goes for huge projects like weather prediction, or on a > smaller scale, 3D rendering programs like Blender. Input > process > > output says absolutely nothing about system loads or programming > difficulty. Writing a compiler that literally translates the programmer's > code to binary might be fairly easy. But when you factor in a good dose > of error checking and optimization, things get more difficult VERY > quickly. In some fields, that's what nearly all programs do. In other fields, concepts like files, consoles, etc. are pretty much meaningless, and programs instead operate with things like I/O port latches, hardware event counters, pulse generators, serial ports, DMA controllers, etc. C is uniquely good in the latter fields, but unfortunately the language is under the control of people who are absolutely indifferent to them. I don't really see much advantage to using C versus C++ when developing code for hosted targets. Any current hosted-target platform is going to have had a C++ compiler available for it, and while support for things like exception handling would require code generated from C++ to be somewhat larger than code generated from C, that's not apt to pose any problems on any current hosted platforms. The places C is most useful are small systems that operate close enough to resource limits that the extra burdens imposed by C++ would be unacceptable. If one is trying to write code to go in 100,000 coffee makers, an extra 2KB of RAM could easily cost $50,000. C is also useful in systems-programming contexts where code can't rely upon any language-provided dynamic memory allocations. Unfortunately, the Standard invests a lot of effort on things that are useless in the contexts where C has the fewest competitors, while ignoring things which are vital in such contexts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 17:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvvma7$2pl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96206 |
On 09/11/2016 16:33, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:06:24 AM UTC-6, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >> On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 13:13:09 +0000, BartC wrote: >>> You need a language that can take input from a file, do some processing, >>> and output another file. >> >> Isn't that what most programs do? Take input, process it a bit, show >> output? That even goes for huge projects like weather prediction, or on a >> smaller scale, 3D rendering programs like Blender. Input > process > >> output says absolutely nothing about system loads or programming >> difficulty. Writing a compiler that literally translates the programmer's >> code to binary might be fairly easy. But when you factor in a good dose >> of error checking and optimization, things get more difficult VERY >> quickly. > > In some fields, that's what nearly all programs do. In other fields, > concepts like files, consoles, etc. are pretty much meaningless, and > programs instead operate with things like I/O port latches, hardware > event counters, pulse generators, serial ports, DMA controllers, etc. You wouldn't consider running a compiler on such a machine (except possibly using it to farm out the task of compiling, assuming it's powerful enough, using custom means to get the data in and out). > C is uniquely good in the latter fields, (Possibly unique among mainstream languages now. I used my own in the eighties for just such purposes, and was even better than C would have been (such as running efficiently on 8-bit hardware). There might have been others then (PL/M?) and well as those developed as in-house languages, like mine, that no one else knew about.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web