From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,99ab4bb580fc34cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: Q: access to subprogram
Date: 1996/07/11
Message-ID: <4s2tq3$fku@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 168311429
references: <m291cv99nr.fsf@devo.ridgecrest.ca.us> <dewar.836776773@schonberg>
 <m2u3vfem42.fsf@devo.ridgecrest.ca.us>
organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <m2u3vfem42.fsf@devo.ridgecrest.ca.us> Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgecrest.ca.us> writes:
>Again not true.  Yes, the source contains all the parts for each
>backend, but all the parts are not used to build the backend.
>Configure() will determine the correct source files and create links
>to properly build one target backend.  The multiple backends at the
>source level are kept under the config subdirectory and grouped by
>architecture.  I count thirty distinct backends:

What you are actually counting are thirty distinct configuration files
used to tailor the single backend to a particular target machine.

>You presume incorrectly.  I consider the frontend to be defined by the
>language it accepts, not by the host architecture or the number of
>object files in an implementation.  Likewise, I consider the backend
>to be defined by the object code it produces.

So long as you state the definitions you are using, you are free to
use any you want.  But whatever words you use, there is a major
distinction between the GCC approach and that used by other
multi-target systems.