Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| backend question doeringm@gmx.de (Martin Doering) (2002-11-12) |
| Re: backend question dnovillo@redhat.com (Diego Novillo) (2002-11-13) |
| Re: backend question hannah@schlund.de (Hannah Schroeter) (2002-11-13) |
| Re: backend question fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) (2002-11-13) |
| Re: backend question joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2002-11-13) |
| Re: backend question thp@cs.ucr.edu (2002-11-17) |
| Re: backend question joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2002-11-20) |
| Re: backend question chase@world.std.com (David Chase) (2002-11-20) |
| Re: backend question reig@tenerife.ics.uci.edu (Fermin Reig) (2002-11-24) |
| Re: backend question felixundduni@freenet.de (felix) (2002-11-24) |
| Re: backend question fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) (2002-11-24) |
| Re: backend question thp@cs.ucr.edu (2002-11-24) |
| Re: backend question whopkins@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) (2002-11-24) |
| Re: backend question nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) (2002-11-24) |
| [8 later articles] |
| From: | "David Chase" <chase@world.std.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 20 Nov 2002 15:23:06 -0500 |
| Organization: | The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989 |
| References: | 02-11-063 02-11-078 02-11-099 |
| Keywords: | C, design |
| Posted-Date: | 20 Nov 2002 15:23:06 EST |
On 17 Nov 2002 23:20:16 -0500, thp@cs.ucr.edu wrote:
> Joachim Durchholz <joachim_d@gmx.de> wrote:
> + Which doesn't mean it's particularly suitable... C gets you started
> + quickly, but for an intermediate format, it abstracts away the wrong
> + things in some places. This begins to bite if you're doing
> + concurrency, exceptions, fancy integer arithmetic, tail-call
> + elimination, or state machines.
> Standard C lacks an indirect jump (though one can be kludged a switch
> statement). Anything that can be done in say MIPS assembly language
> can be done in gcc, which has an indirect goto. Where necessary, one
> can generates comments that preserve the memory of what got abstracted
> away.
Standard C doesn't give you enough control to write a precise garbage
collector (one that can see all the pointers, and exactly all the
pointers), nor does it give you good control of things like rounding
modes. Standard C also doesn't give you the ability to move your
execution stack (if, for instance, it is too small). Standard C also
gives you less than adequate control of floating point.
David Chase
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.