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
  • 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 1 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 2 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.