Re: executables

On Fri, 2 Dec 1994, John D. Mitchell wrote:


> That's mostly because it would be a lot of work to do the extra stuff for a
> relatively small gain in audience and a big increase in the size of the
> book (and you'd still just have one for a single format).


First, thanks for the reply... and second, sure but what is the audience
size for peephole optimization or "worse" if I can call it that. Some of
the texts I've come across (appear) to be targeted to "Parallel Compiler
Threading in TCP/IP for ISAM files on a AS400" <g>


> MS's link is quite different then Borland's tlink.


I can run Clipper compiled .OBJ files through MS link, TLINK, PLINK86,
Blinker (real and protected modes) ummm Causeway (protected mode linker),
if I could write something that linked by any one of them I'd consider
that an accomplishment.


> You can, of course, look at the source code to any of the PD/shareware
> assembler's and/or compilers out there. A86 comes to mind and so does the
> huge GCC.


I thought I had A86 and don't remember seeing code for it nor do I recall
seeing it on the giant list of free compilers but I'll check it again.


> At this point, all my pet compiler projects go to C or assembly.


Cheater, cheater pumpkin eater (just kidding <g>)


So who could teach me this and how much would it cost ? I take it this
isn't something one has to do to get a Master's in CS ? If so do they
make everybody rip up their notes before they leave class ?


Thanks again for your reply.


tom
--

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