Re: Is multi-level function return possible?

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Mon, 24 Mar 2014 20:01:20 +0000 (UTC)

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[24 earlier articles]
Re: Is multi-level function return possible? news@cuboid.co.uk (Andy Walker) (2014-03-16)
Re: Is multi-level function return possible? yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk (Bill Findlay) (2014-03-17)
Re: Is multi-level function return possible? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2014-03-18)
Re: Is multi-level function return possible? news@cuboid.co.uk (Andy Walker) (2014-03-21)
Re: Is multi-level function return possible? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2014-03-21)
Re: Is multi-level function return possible? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2014-03-24)
Re: Is multi-level function return possible? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2014-03-24)
Re: Is multi-level function return possible? gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2014-03-26)
Re: Is multi-level function return possible? news@cuboid.co.uk (Andy Walker) (2014-03-26)
Re: Is multi-level function return possible? news@cuboid.co.uk (Andy Walker) (2014-03-26)
Re: Is multi-level function return possible? federation2005@netzero.com (2014-03-26)
Re: Is multi-level function return possible? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2014-03-27)
Re: Is multi-level function return possible? monnier@iro.umontreal.ca (Stefan Monnier) (2014-04-07)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 20:01:20 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
References: 14-03-020 14-03-022 14-03-025 14-03-030 14-03-044 14-03-046 14-03-047 14-03-048 14-03-053 14-03-057
Keywords: C, history, comment
Posted-Date: 24 Mar 2014 16:58:34 EDT

(snip on C compilers, where our moderator wrote)


> [We do forget that Ritchie's C compiler ran in 12K bytes of RAM,
> two passes plus assembler, and generated quite respectable code
> for the PDP-11. -John]


I wonder how that compares to the PL/I (F) compiler in 44K?


Not that you would want to run it in 44K, but rumors are that it
was designed to, and will do it.


At the end of every compilation, it tells the minimum region
that will allow it to keep the symbol table in memory.


-- glen


[The F meant it was supposed to run on a 64K machine, so 44K of
available core sounds about right. PL/I D squeezed a PL/I subset
into a 16K machine. -John]

Post a followup to this message

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