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: Ronald Cole Subject: Re: Q: access to subprogram Date: 1996/07/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 164176244 sender: ronald@devo.ridgecrest.ca.us x-nntp-posting-host: annex063 references: <4rb9dp$qe6@news1.delphi.com> organization: RidgeNet - SLIP/PPP Internet, Ridgecrest, CA. (619) 371-3501 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > not all compilers are like this, GCC has only one back end, but many > compilers do have myultiple backends). Not true. A single instance of GCC doesn't support multiple machine targets (other than the -m options for some processor families). GCC has to be recompiled to support different machine descriptions (that's what the -b and -V options of gcc are for). I consider this as having multiple backends. Many years ago, when asked about why he didn't make GCC read loadable md files, Stallman answered that it would hurt performance (both for the compiler and for the generated code) (there were probably a few other reasons, but it was too long ago for me to remember them all. that was around the time when Stallman said that writing what we now know as the bfd libraries would be "hard"). -- Ronald Cole E-mail: ronald@ridgecrest.ca.us President, CEO zippy@ecst.csuchico.edu Forte International Fax: (619) 384-2346 My PGP fingerprint: E9 A8 E3 68 61 88 EF 43 56 2B CE 3E E9 8F 3F 2B