|[6 earlier articles]|
|Re: performance-oriented languages? email@example.com (Philipp Klaus Krause) (2004-10-09)|
|Re: performance-oriented languages? firstname.lastname@example.org (Stefano Lanzavecchia) (2004-10-12)|
|Re: performance-oriented languages? email@example.com (2004-10-17)|
|Re: performance-oriented languages? firstname.lastname@example.org (John Max Skaller) (2004-10-21)|
|Re: performance-oriented languages? email@example.com (2004-10-21)|
|Re: performance-oriented languages? firstname.lastname@example.org (Daniel Berlin) (2004-10-23)|
|Re: performance-oriented languages? email@example.com (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2004-10-24)|
|From:||glen herrmannsfeldt <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||24 Oct 2004 23:39:49 -0400|
|References:||04-10-015 04-10-151 04-10-162|
|Posted-Date:||24 Oct 2004 23:39:49 EDT|
Daniel Berlin wrote:
> What an incredibly strange thing to say, when one of the most optimizing
> compilers out there (Intel's), is written in C.
> I do agree that it's not necessarily the nicest language in the world to
> work with when trying to write high level optimizations, but claiming you
> can't write a good compiler in it is squarely contradicted by the fact
> that Intel did and does it.
The optimizing code for the IBM S/360 Fortran H compiler
was written in Fortran. (That is, Fortran 66 with a few extensions
such as the IAND, IOR, ISHIFT, and IXOR functions.) The rest
of it is in assembly. I would say that C is much better for
writing high level optimizations than Fortran 66.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.