Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| From: | "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:06:58 -0400 (EDT) |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | <pag5ao$h59$1@dont-email.me> |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="51638"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | standards, history |
| Posted-Date: | 10 Apr 2018 11:06:58 EDT |
[[ this string is copied from comp.arch because your moderation found it interesting ]]
On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 10:45:15 AM UTC-6, Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article <pag2qg$lq4$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
> >- Direct compiling to machine code and not using intermediate assembler
> >to get away from the two copy problem with code generation ISA restrictions.
> Well, er, yes, in theory. But suitable intermediate non-text languages
> (assembler is, I agree, outdated) are a vast simplification of compilers
> that are designed for multiple source languages and multiple target
> machines. gcc is one such.
Also, that's hardly a tactic that postdates Aho, Hopcroft, and Ullman. Fortran G
may have compiled to a P-code like form, being written by an external company
that made compilers to order for whatever architecture - but Fortran H went
directly to 360 machine code.
John Savard
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.