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?
>[Easier for C compilers to provide asm escapes with underlying assembler]


In article 94-04-054 bill@travis.csd.harris.com writes:
>Not all C compilers provide _asm directives (ours doesn't)...


It is perhaps worthy of note that implementors do not have this option
in the case of C++. So-called `asm directives' are a part of the current
draft C++ standard. Implementors *must* provide them.
--
-- Ron Guilmette, Sunnyvale, CA
---- domain addr: rfg@netcom.com
---- uucp addr: ...!uunet!netcom!rfg
[Does the asm directive have to do anything useful? I'm not being totally
facetious here; back in olden days C reserved the words asm, fortran, and
entry, even though most compilers didn't implement them. -John]
--

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