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: 1996/07/14 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 168726463 sender: ronald@devo.ridgecrest.ca.us x-nntp-posting-host: annex059 references: organization: RidgeNet - SLIP/PPP Internet, Ridgecrest, CA. (619) 371-3501 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes: > What you are actually counting are thirty distinct configuration files > used to tailor the single backend to a particular target machine. "Tailor"! Yes, my point exactly. The day gcc can read md files directly is the day I agree that it is a single backend. Gcc is really multiple backend with a meta-layer that gives the appearance of a single backend. > 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. IMO, the gcc approach lives somewhere between single and multiple backend. You probably remember well the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the CISC-owners when gcc went from version 1 (handled CISC well/RISC not-so-well) to version 2 (handles RISC much better/CISC not-as-well-as-version-1/holds "inbetween architectures" like the Pentium in contempt). But this thread has travelled well off topic for this group and this is my last post on the subject. -- 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