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: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Q: access to subprogram Date: 1996/07/14 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 168388985 references: <4rb9dp$qe6@news1.delphi.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "If this were true, then gcc could be made to read the md files directly. But since it can't due to some of the code generation shenanigans that go on in an md file; well, I'll let you figure it out..." Again, you miss the point (you seem pretty determined to do so). The point is that there is a very important qualitative difference, in terms of the impact of language changes on the backend, between the effect on a technology like GCC, and a technology where the code generators are substantial separate programs for each back end. Since I know you know the GCC technology it is hard for me to believe that you disagree with this! That is the one and only important point that is relevant to the start of this thread (which was talking about the effect of definitions of access-to-subporgram semantics on backend technologies).