Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| object code vs. assembler code John_Burton@gec-epl.co.uk (1993-02-19) |
| Re: object code vs. assembler code byron@netapp.com (1993-02-20) |
| Re: object code vs. assembler code henry@zoo.toronto.edu (1993-02-21) |
| Re: object code vs. assembler code (Detailed response) clyde@hitech.com.au (1993-02-22) |
| Re: Object vs. Assembly from a compiler gorton@blorf.amt.tay.dec.com (1993-02-22) |
| Re: object code vs. assembler code (Detailed response) segfault!rfg@uunet.UU.NET (1993-03-13) |
| Assembly hacker vs. compiler revisited snovack@enterprise.ICS.UCI.EDU (Steven Novack) (1993-04-08) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| From: | John_Burton@gec-epl.co.uk |
| Keywords: | assembler, question, comment |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| Date: | Fri, 19 Feb 1993 09:25:29 GMT |
Many unix based compilers seem to produce assembly language output which
is assembled by a separate program to produce object modules.
Obviously it is possible for a compiler to produce object code directly
which seems to be the standard on many other systems which seems much more
efficent to me.
Is there any good reason why many compilers produce assembly language as
this seems to be a big performance hit with no gain by doing this. I can't
see that producing obejct code is *that* much harder.
-- John Burton
[Mostly it's a matter of taste. Some Unix assemblers, particularly the
earlier ones, were very fast, so there needn't be a performance issue. -John]
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.