Re: generic assembly language available?

ChokSheak Lau wrote:
> I think what you have is the closest to what I am looking for
> (except it is not freeware), anyway, i am not sure whether the
> idea of having a generic low-level language (much much lower
> than C) is possible at all or not.


For what it's worth, there is no problem with using C as a misspelled
assembly language. Since C is semantically similar to a superset of
assemby, you can have just about any feature you'd want in a "generic
assembly language" just by deciding which features of C you will not
use.


I did this a couple of years ago for a LISP compiler that emitted C
code; the code it emitted used goto's and handled its stack
explicitly. It used no C procedure calls or other C-stack based
control structures and it was effectively a generic assembly language.


Bear
[Lots of languages use C as a portable low-level back end. -John]

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