Re: Why do we still assemble?

hbaker@netcom.com (Henry G. Baker) writes:
> [RS/6000 compilers disassemble their object to get .s files]
> What an inspired and elegant solution! Any decent system has to have a
> good disassembler, anyway, so it's better to put good manpower into this
    ^^^^
> task than into writing an assembler.


bill@ssd.csd.harris.com writes:
>Well... I don't consider this a very elegant solution, myself. First of
>all, I lose all the local labels and symbols that the compiler generated
>and used but which don't get into the object file.


hbaker@netcom.com (Henry G. Baker) writes:
> I think the operative word here is _good_. Most object file formats I
> have seen include both file-scoped and global symbols, so there is no
> reason why the local labels and symbols shouldn't be there in the -S file.


There is a very good reason why all those local labels shouldn't be there:
disk space!


Anyway, part of my point is that the compiler can put out more "symbolic"
assembler than any disassembler could. The compiler could, for instance,
annotate the assembly code with comments relating register references to
local variables, use variable names as symbolic stack offsets instead of
just numbers, etc.


--
Bill Leonard
Harris Computer Systems Division
2101 W. Cypress Creek Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
bill@ssd.csd.harris.com
--

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