Re: Why do we still assemble?

hbaker@netcom.com (Henry G. Baker) writes:


>Other than sheer institutional inertia, why do we continue to compile into
>assembler code, then assemble the code into relocatable binary? Why don't
>we compile directly to relocatable binary and be done with it?


Well all of the compilers that I have used _except_ those on Unix boxes
compile directly into object code. All of the commerical PC based
compilers produce object code directly (some don't even come with an
assembler!) and the good ones like Borland C++ are _fast_ (well C++
compilation speed leaves something to be desired, but C++ has _soo_ much
overhead this is understandable - I mean the debug information is usually
2-3 times larger than the object code!).


Most PC compilers are light years ahead of the Unix compiles in raw speed,
but I dont think this just has to do with producing direct object code
(this is definately one factor). I believe that GNU C++ also produces
direct object code for the platforms that it supports (correct me if I am
wrong), but the PC platform ports of this compiler are incredibly slow
compared to something like Borland C++ or Symantec C++ - mind you the
object code produced is usually faster than anything else ;-).
+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Kendall Bennett | Email: rcskb@minyos.xx.rmit.edu.au |
| Software Engineer, SciTech Software | CIS: 100237,2213 |
| Unit 5, 106 Southbank Boulevard | Fax: +61 3 690 2137 |
| South Melbourne 3205 AUSTRALIA | |
[G++ produces assembler, not object code. Given its portability goals, I
think that's excusable. -John]
--

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