Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [hackers-il] [colloq@cs.Technion.AC.IL: Shimon Schocken on Tuesday 05/06/2001]

Expand Messages
  • Moshe Zadka
    ... You forgot Chill -- I ll be ex-DPL soon anyway so I m |LUKE: Is Perl better than Python? looking for someplace else to grab power. |YODA:
    Message 1 of 14 , Apr 10, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:

      > In any case, how many language front-ends there are to gcc anyways. Here
      > are the ones I'm aware of:
      >
      > 1. ANSI C (gcc)
      > 2. C++ (g++)
      > 3. Objective C (comes with the gcc distribution)
      > 4. Pascal (gpc and perhaps also Free Pascal)
      > 5. Java and Java byte code (gcj)
      > 6. Ada (GNATS - it's written in Ada, so you need to bootstrap it)
      > 7. Fortran 77 (g77) - available on GNU sites.
      > 8. Haskell - Glasgow Haskell Compiler or ghc. It is written in Haskell,
      > and requires itself to be compiled.

      You forgot Chill

      --
      "I'll be ex-DPL soon anyway so I'm |LUKE: Is Perl better than Python?
      looking for someplace else to grab power."|YODA: No...no... no. Quicker,
      -- Wichert Akkerman (on debian-private)| easier, more seductive.
      For public key, finger moshez@... |http://www.{python,debian,gnu}.org
    • Oleg Goldshmidt
      ... I don t know about it. Can anyone confirm? A bit of personal reminiscences: For a few years I worked for a company that was writing tons of Fortran code,
      Message 2 of 14 , Apr 10, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        "Nadav Har'El" <nyh@...> writes:

        > The stand-alone Fortan-to-C compiler was ditched in favor for a
        > Fortran front-end withing gcc.

        I don't know about it. Can anyone confirm?

        A bit of personal reminiscences:

        For a few years I worked for a company that was writing tons of
        Fortran code, with the main development compiler being f2c/gcc (in the
        fort77 incarnation). Worked like a charm (better than commercial
        compilers we had on our target platforms), last time I recall a
        problem was years ago, and the fix was really fast.

        For probably something like a couple of years, when g77 reached some
        sort of maturity, I used both f2c and g77. Both worked fine, g77 was a
        bit stricter about standards as I recall. there were some differences
        regarding debugging information, overall I think that f2c/gcc
        combination worked better with gdb (as I recall this stuff was very
        well explained in some pretty obvious place in the info pages, for the
        inquisitive). Maybe I was simply more used to it though.

        One benefit of f2c/gcc combination is that you can look at the C code,
        which may come handy if you mix C and Fortran. One must be cautious,
        of course, since f2c is not guaranteed to do the same thing as other
        Fortran compilers, but it's useful and instructive nonetheless.

        > So what are the real benefits in this monolithic approach?

        [Irrelevant for GCC]: Financial? You can charge for separate
        compilers... ;-)

        > Is it the better optimization possibilities? Wouldn't this problem
        > be solved if C optimizers are improved?

        Maybe the fact that different languages follow different models, and
        it is not always optimal (in many senses) to twist a language to
        produce something fairly contorted in C, something that a C compiler
        may have trouble dealing with or optimizing or...

        --
        Oleg Goldshmidt | ogoldshmidt@...
        "I'd rather write programs to write programs than write programs."
      • Oleg Goldshmidt
        ... I forgot to mention that I do see advantages in translating everything into a portable assembler . Or into lisp (to have both a compiler and an
        Message 3 of 14 , Apr 10, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Oleg Goldshmidt <ogoldshmidt@...> writes:

          > Maybe the fact that different languages follow different models, and
          > it is not always optimal (in many senses) to twist a language to
          > produce something fairly contorted in C, something that a C compiler
          > may have trouble dealing with or optimizing or...

          I forgot to mention that I do see advantages in translating everything
          into a "portable assembler". Or into lisp (to have both a compiler
          and an interpreter) -- as Chen was right to mention.

          --
          Oleg Goldshmidt | ogoldshmidt@...
          "I'd rather write programs to write programs than write programs."
        • Shlomi Fish
          ... I didn t forget, I just didn t knew a Chill front-end (or the Chill language for that matter) existed in the first place. But now we have 9 front-ends and
          Message 4 of 14 , Apr 10, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Moshe Zadka wrote:

            > On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
            >
            > > In any case, how many language front-ends there are to gcc anyways. Here
            > > are the ones I'm aware of:
            > >
            > > 1. ANSI C (gcc)
            > > 2. C++ (g++)
            > > 3. Objective C (comes with the gcc distribution)
            > > 4. Pascal (gpc and perhaps also Free Pascal)
            > > 5. Java and Java byte code (gcj)
            > > 6. Ada (GNATS - it's written in Ada, so you need to bootstrap it)
            > > 7. Fortran 77 (g77) - available on GNU sites.
            > > 8. Haskell - Glasgow Haskell Compiler or ghc. It is written in Haskell,
            > > and requires itself to be compiled.
            >
            > You forgot Chill
            >

            I didn't forget, I just didn't knew a Chill front-end (or the Chill
            language for that matter) existed in the first place. But now we have 9
            front-ends and going strong.

            Regards,

            Shlomi Fish

            ----------------------------------------------------------------------
            Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
            Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
            Home E-mail: shlomif@...

            A more experienced programmer does not make less bugs. He just realizes
            what went wrong more quickly.
          • Nadav Har'El
            ... But that was my original point, if you view C as a portable assembler . After all, C is very low level. Surely, if C has some constructs that cannot be
            Message 5 of 14 , Apr 10, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              On Tue, Apr 10, 2001, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] [colloq@...: Shimon Schocken on Tuesday 05/06/2001]":
              > I forgot to mention that I do see advantages in translating everything
              > into a "portable assembler". Or into lisp (to have both a compiler
              > and an interpreter) -- as Chen was right to mention.

              But that was my original point, if you view C as a "portable assembler".
              After all, C is very low level. Surely, if C has some constructs that
              cannot be optimized without knowledge of the architecture of the specific
              machine, then you'll have the same problem with any portable assembler
              you devise. If you do a loop in assembly language, and can't assume that
              a called function (or another thread) doesn't change the loop pointer, then
              you face the same optimizing problem you have when compiling C...

              I'm sure that there is some optimization pentalty in compiling to C, but
              I would be suprised if that penalty is substantial when using a good C
              compiler. Of course, this wouldn't be true if another language was chosen
              instead of C - the assumption is that it is a very low-level language quite
              close to the machine language.


              --
              Nadav Har'El | Tuesday, Apr 10 2001, 17 Nisan 5761
              nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
              Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Can Microsoft make a product that
              http://nadav.harel.org.il |doesn't suck? Yes, a vacuum cleaner!
            • Oleg Goldshmidt
              ... Precisely. I was concerned that my previous posting would be regarded as a disagreement, so I wrote the appendage. -- Oleg Goldshmidt |
              Message 6 of 14 , Apr 10, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                "Nadav Har'El" <nyh@...> writes:

                > On Tue, Apr 10, 2001, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] [colloq@...: Shimon Schocken on Tuesday 05/06/2001]":

                > > I forgot to mention that I do see advantages in translating everything
                > > into a "portable assembler". Or into lisp (to have both a compiler
                > > and an interpreter) -- as Chen was right to mention.
                >
                > But that was my original point,

                Precisely. I was concerned that my previous posting would be regarded
                as a disagreement, so I wrote the appendage.

                --
                Oleg Goldshmidt | ogoldshmidt@...
                "I'd rather write programs to write programs than write programs."
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.