|IL design? email@example.com (2006-12-11)|
|Re: IL design? Juergen.Kahrs@vr-web.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=) (2006-12-11)|
|Re: IL design? bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2006-12-12)|
|Re: IL design? Juergen.Kahrs@vr-web.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=) (2006-12-13)|
|Re: IL design? bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2006-12-14)|
|Re: IL design? firstname.lastname@example.org (Russ Cox) (2006-12-14)|
|Re: IL design? email@example.com (Robert H) (2006-12-21)|
|Date:||13 Dec 2006 13:03:36 -0500|
|References:||06-12-049 06-12-052 06-12-053|
Robert A Duff wrote:
> That's what everybody says, but I don't think it's true. I think an
> "assembly language" is a language whose semantics are defined in terms
> of what code gets generated. The presence of macros and whatnot does
> not change this -- even with a macro assembler, the programmer has
> complete (or nearly complete) control over the generated code.
Yes, in a strict sense you are right.
> A "higher level language" has semantics defined in terms of what the
> program does. C is clearly this.
> I've built compilers that generate C, and it can certainly work, but
> it's far from ideal.
The original poster asked for portability and efficiency. In this
respect, C is a good choice. If you ask for more (source-level
analysis, exception handling), then there might be other ILs that
provide more than C. But are the other ILs good at portability and
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.