Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!labrea!jade!eris!mwm
From: mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Compilers?
Message-ID: <5042@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Wed, 9-Sep-87 19:40:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: jade.5042
Posted: Wed Sep  9 19:40:30 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Sep-87 00:37:57 EDT
References: <1708@amiga.amiga.UUCP> <581@sugar.UUCP> <935@unicus.UUCP> <66@oresoft.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer)
Followup-To: comp.lang.misc
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 45
Keywords: compiler assembler dwim mating
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.amiga:8202 comp.lang.misc:652

[This is being moved from comp.sys.amiga to comp.lang.misc - mwm]

In article <66@oresoft.UUCP> rick@oresoft.UUCP (Rick Lahrson) writes:
<Please!  It's not any compiler's responsibility, nor is it appropriate
<for a compiler, to do things the programmer didn't ask for.  A compiler's
<job is translating one language into another, maintaining semantic
<equivalence.

Oh, horse pucky. A compiler should do a *lot* more than that. To save
space, I'm going to say "do X" when I actually mean "generate code to
do X."

For instance, almost every compiler has some prelude that needs to be
run before the compiled code starts running.  That needs to be taken
care of. Other things include type checking, both at compile time and
at run time if apropriate. Array bounds checking, ditto. Stack and
heap management. Possibly garbage collection. I'm sure there's more,
if I could think of it.

The job of translating from one language to another and maintaining
semantic equivalence is a the job for a translator. A compiler is a
special case of that. But so is an assembler, or yacc, or lex, or a
host of similar tools. A compiler that does nothing else is little
more than a high-level assembler.

[Referring to BCPL and it's pointers in AmigaDOS.]
<stupid, disgusting BPTR's.  (Now there's a job that a compiler SHOULD
<be able to do -- generate code that relates to the target machine!)

But you've got to convince the target machine to look like the machine
model the compiler wants to generate code for. The best you can hope
for when the compilers model and the manufacturers model clash badly
(like one being word addressed and the other byte addressed) is that
the language will be consistent with itself. BCPL manages to do that
on the Amiga, but you lose if you want to interface it to something
else. C on the CRAY does that, but those (*&(*&^ byte pointers give
headaches to people dealing with assembler.

	<mike

--
Must have walked those streets for hours,		Mike Meyer
In the dark and in the cold,				mwm@berkeley.edu
Before I really could accept,				ucbvax!mwm
There's no place called hope road.			mwm@ucbjade.BITNET