|C++ vs C compiler on size email@example.com (1997-01-07)|
|Re: C++ vs C compiler on size firstname.lastname@example.org (Arch Robison) (1997-01-09)|
|Re: C++ vs C compiler on size email@example.com.OZ.AU (1997-01-12)|
|Re: C++ vs C compiler on size firstname.lastname@example.org (1997-01-12)|
|Re: C++ vs C compiler on size email@example.com (1997-01-12)|
|Re: C++ vs C compiler on size firstname.lastname@example.org (Stanley Chow) (1997-01-14)|
|Re: C++ vs C compiler on size email@example.com (Joseph Donahue) (1997-01-14)|
|Re: C++ vs C compiler on size firstname.lastname@example.org (1997-01-16)|
|Re: C++ vs C compiler on size email@example.com (Kurt Svensson) (1997-01-16)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson)|
|Date:||12 Jan 1997 10:47:07 -0500|
|Organization:||Comp Sci, University of Melbourne|
|Keywords:||C, C++, performance|
Arch Robison <email@example.com> writes:
> Separate discussion issue: Is it theoretically possible for a C++
>compiler to always generate machine code linear in the size of the
Yes, in fact this is possible for almost all languages -- a "linear"
compiler can just generate an executable that includes both a
conventional (or bytecode) compiler and the original source code; this
executable will invoke the conventional (or bytecode) compiler at
runtime, to generate code on-the-fly, and will then execute (or interpret)
that code. Since the size of the conventional (or bytecode) compiler
is constant, the size of the executable generated by the linear
compiler is linear in the size of the source code.
Now, that this is perhaps not quite in the spirit of "generating
machine code", but I think you will have difficulty in phrasing your
question in a way that avoids answers like this.
Fergus Henderson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
PGP: finger email@example.com
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.