Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| From: | "Nick Maclaren" <nmm@wheeler.UUCP> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:04:02 -0400 (EDT) |
| Organization: | Old Fogies Society |
| References: | <0d4dc7f8-1819-43e5-8082-6ff7aee5f41b@googlegroups.com> <pag2qg$lq4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <pag5ao$h59$1@dont-email.me> <5b7f2483-dd96-451d-8764-1df74832eaff@googlegroups.com> |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="49642"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | standards |
| Posted-Date: | 10 Apr 2018 11:04:02 EDT |
[[ this string is copied from comp.arch because your moderation found it interesting ]]
In article <5b7f2483-dd96-451d-8764-1df74832eaff@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> >- Direct compiling to machine code and not using intermediate assembler
>> >to get away from the two copy problem with code generation ISA restrictions.
>
>> Well, er, yes, in theory. But suitable intermediate non-text languages
>> (assembler is, I agree, outdated) are a vast simplification of compilers
>> that are designed for multiple source languages and multiple target
>> machines. gcc is one such.
>
>Also, that's hardly a tactic that postdates Aho, Hopcroft, and Ullman.
Most definitely. Both approaches were old hat LONG before.
>Fortran G
>may have compiled to a P-code like form, being written by an external company
>that made compilers to order for whatever architecture - but Fortran H went
>directly to 360 machine code.
And therein hangs a tale. Fortran G was a fairly good compiler, and
actually generated BETTER code than Fortran H did, in many important
respects. More relevantly, attempting to fix those in Fortran H, X
and Q, and even VS Fortran, was impossible because of its design.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.