Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!rutgers!mcnc!thorin!zeta!leech
From: leech@zeta.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ --> C
Message-ID: <7755@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Date: 14 Apr 89 17:12:45 GMT
References: <173@cs.columbia.edu> <1989Apr14.082659.19048@LTH.Se>
Sender: news@thorin.cs.unc.edu
Reply-To: leech@zeta.UUCP (Jonathan Leech)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 26
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Keywords:

In article <1989Apr14.082659.19048@LTH.Se> dag@Control.LTH.Se (Dag Bruck) writes:
>>Can you get g++ or cfront to generate C on the Sun and have the
>>unnamed machine compile that?
>My view is that the C code produced by a C++ compiler is not particularly
>portable, but I'm sure it can be, and has been, done.

    Since the way you port cfront is to cross-compile it for the
new machine, it certainly can be, and has been (many times), done.

>Assuming the target machine is "similar" to your Sun, I would try porting
>the compiler.

    Similarity is irrelevant, as long as it runs a reasonably standard
Unix. I even managed to port cfront from a Sun-3 to a DG MV/10000,
which has a painfully dissimilar architecture to almost everything
(word-addressed, stack grows up, non-standard object file format, no
'nm' for munch, etc.)

>I think that is more cost-effective in the long run.

    No argument there.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``Are there any more questions, besides the ones from the
      liberal communists?''
	- George Uribe, natl. director of "Students For America"