From: | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:41:43 -0700 |
Organization: | albasani.net |
References: | 11-08-006 11-08-007 11-08-029 |
Keywords: | courses, assembler |
Posted-Date: | 31 Aug 2011 09:32:08 EDT |
On 8/27/2011 8:30 AM, Joe keane wrote:
> Volker Birk<bumens@dingens.org> writes:
>> If you want to compile a programming language to assembler code
>
> I'm not sure why anyone would want to do this; if you have another
> language you can convert it to C code, and concentrate on what you are
> doing. If you find that the C->assembly step can be improved that is
> also useful.
there are a few drawbacks to compiling to C though:
one can only compile to C in contexts where they have a C compiler,
which largely rules out things like JIT compilers;
the time-to-comile may be somewhat worse (in cases where this is important);
some language features are difficult to implement effectively in C (and
standard C is annoyingly lacking in reflection features);
...
so, it is not so clear-cut that one wouldn't want to compiler to ASM (or
to some bytecode, which is run through a JIT).
[Do you mean compiling to assembler, or compiling to machine code? They're
different. -John]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.