Re: Bootstraping compilers ?

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:18:53 -0800

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[5 earlier articles]
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2008-04-18)
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl) (2008-04-18)
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? cdb@nullstone.com (Christopher Glaeser) (2008-04-19)
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? torbenm@app-4.diku.dk (2008-04-21)
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2008-04-21)
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? pocm@soton.ac.uk (2008-04-22)
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2008-04-21)
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? spencer@panix.com (David Spencer) (2008-04-22)
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2008-04-22)
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2008-04-23)
Re: Fortran H, was Bootstraping compilers ? compilers-request@iecc.com (Comp.compilers) (2008-04-23)
Re: Fortran H, was Bootstraping compilers ? Juergen.Kahrs@vr-web.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=) (2008-04-24)
Re: Fortran H, was Bootstraping compilers ? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2008-04-24)
[1 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:18:53 -0800
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 08-04-059 08-04-078
Keywords: Fortran, history, practice
Posted-Date: 22 Apr 2008 10:21:33 EDT
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com

Torben Fgidius Mogensen wrote:
(snip)


> When writing a compiler, it is more important to write it in a
> language that is suitable for writing compilers than to write it in
> the language that it compiles. Many languages are unsuited for
> writing compilers, so by insisting on bootstrapping, you can make
> things much more complicated than necessary.
(snip)


> [But it was so cool that they wrote Fortran H in itself. -John]


Well, some parts are in assembler, I believe mostly the I/O routines
and the library (shared with Fortran G).


Also, they added bitwise logical intrinsic functions to the compiler
so that they could use them.


My favorite Fortran H story is that they used six trees for the symbol
table instead of a hash table. In one manual IBM recommends that for
faster compilation variable names should be evenly distributed between
one and six characters long. (No mention of using descriptive names.)


Then again, what choice did they have? Assembler or COBOL? Maybe
ALGOL, but PL/I wasn't ready until later.


-- glen
[The library is all assembler, the compiler itself was mostly in extended
Fortran. And you're right, at the time the alternatives were all worse.
-John]



Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.