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: 168341268 sender: ronald@devo.ridgecrest.ca.us x-nntp-posting-host: annex059 references: <4rb9dp$qe6@news1.delphi.com> organization: RidgeNet - SLIP/PPP Internet, Ridgecrest, CA. (619) 371-3501 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Ronald is still missing the point that started this thread. You are missing the point that I am solely taking exception to your categorizing gcc as a "single backend" compiler and not the point that started this thread. At a meta level, gcc may look like one; but under close scrutiny, it clearly isn't. > The other kind of technology uses a single common source base for all > backends. GCC is in this category. Yes, the configuration files differ, > but the great majority of the code is common. This is a critical feature > of GCC, and is what allows easy porting of the technology. To port to > a new architecture, a new configuration file needs to be written, but > not a new code generator. 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... -- 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