Related articles |
---|
Bootstraping compilers ? pocm@soton.ac.uk (2008-04-16) |
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? chris@phaedsys.org (Chris Hills) (2008-04-18) |
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? roland.leissa@googlemail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Roland_Lei=DFa?=) (2008-04-18) |
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? damian.thomas@unisys.com (Damian Thomas) (2008-04-18) |
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2008-04-18) |
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2008-04-18) |
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl) (2008-04-18) |
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? cdb@nullstone.com (Christopher Glaeser) (2008-04-19) |
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? torbenm@app-4.diku.dk (2008-04-21) |
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2008-04-21) |
Re: Bootstraping compilers ? pocm@soton.ac.uk (2008-04-22) |
[4 later articles] |
From: | Marco van de Voort <marcov@stack.nl> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:32:59 +0000 (UTC) |
Organization: | Stack Usenet News Service |
References: | 08-04-059 08-04-068 |
Keywords: | debug, practice |
Posted-Date: | 18 Apr 2008 19:48:20 EDT |
On 2008-04-18, Roland Lei_a <roland.leissa@googlemail.com> wrote:
> A compiler which can compile itself is definitely a nice feature, but
> this is surely not a must have. There are compilers out there which
> don't even understand their source language, i.e. a compiler for
> languages Foo and Bar but the compiler itself is written in C.
>
> But I would agree that a compiler written in Foo and understands Foo
> should be able to compile itself. This is a really nice test.
Depends on the completeness of the support of "Foo" of
course. Specially with ever widening scope of language specifications
of modern languages this is often harder than one would expect.
Similarly the use of non standard extensions in the compiler.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.