Re: Is Assembler Language essential in compiler construction?

"toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message
news:09-02-128@comp.compilers...
> On Feb 11, 7:07 am, "Bartc" <ba...@freeuk.com> wrote:


>> I've tried targetting C and it was completely unsatisfactory.
>> ...
>> So you end up with a target language which is a travesty of C, ...
>
> Like C-- ?
> http://www.cminusminus.org/


I've looked at C-- in the past. These things sounds great when your read the
blurb. Until you try and download the things.


In this case, trying to download their 'quick C compiler': 'web page cannot
be found'. Downloading the 'tarball' gives over 1000 files without any
apparent roadmap (my compiler is 10 files). And is all for Linux anyway; I'm
on Windows.


It doesn't look like an actual C-- compiler (taking C-- source and
generating, I guess, asm source or object code) exists. I think they expect
other people to create the compilers from their language spec.


If there existed a single executable that took C-- source and generated
object code for my platform, like say NASM.EXE, that wouldn't be so bad.


But C-- itself doesn't seem so simple; it looks more complex than C at first
sight. The PDF description is 65 pages. A description of my current
intermediate language might just be padded out to 6 pages, and supports my
language concepts 100%.


And my current project needs to bypass the usual object file and linking
stages. Sometimes it's simpler and easier to just do this stuff yourself.


--
Bartc

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