Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :)

"marb...@yahoo.co.uk" <marblypup@yahoo.co.uk>
Sat, 7 Jan 2023 02:14:51 -0800 (PST)

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) gah4@u.washington.edu (gah4) (2023-01-03)
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) arnold@skeeve.com (2023-01-04)
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) gah4@u.washington.edu (gah4) (2023-01-04)
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) marblypup@yahoo.co.uk (marb...@yahoo.co.uk) (2023-01-05)
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) gah4@u.washington.edu (gah4) (2023-01-05)
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) david.brown@hesbynett.no (David Brown) (2023-01-06)
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) marblypup@yahoo.co.uk (marb...@yahoo.co.uk) (2023-01-07)
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) david.brown@hesbynett.no (David Brown) (2023-01-08)
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2023-01-09)
Re: C scopes, another C-like language? was Compilers :) david.brown@hesbynett.no (David Brown) (2023-01-09)
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) 864-117-4973@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2023-01-09)
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com (Keith Thompson) (2023-01-09)
Re: another C-like language? was Compilers :) david.brown@hesbynett.no (David Brown) (2023-01-10)
[11 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "marb...@yahoo.co.uk" <marblypup@yahoo.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2023 02:14:51 -0800 (PST)
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 23-01-001 23-01-002 23-01-003 23-01-008
Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="74083"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: C, code, comment
Posted-Date: 08 Jan 2023 13:55:54 EST
In-Reply-To: 23-01-008

> [If you're doing a one-pass compiler, it's easier if all the declarations are at the
> beginning so you can generate the code to set up the stack frame and do initializations.
> I agree that on modern computers it's not a big deal, but remember that early C compilers
> ran in 24K bytes and I don't mean meagabytes. -John]


Presumably such a compiler would have to create 2 stack frames for
`char *foo="foo"; puts(foo); { char *bar="bar"; puts(bar); }`
[In a mutant version of C with nested scopes, I suppose so, but when C compilers
ran in 24K bytes, it didn't. -John]

Post a followup to this message

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