Mail Archives: djgpp/2001/07/04/17:15:06
test
Graaagh the Mighty wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:05:45 +0100, Mark McIntyre
> <mark AT garthorn DOT demon DOT co DOT uk> sat on a tribble, which squeaked:
>
> >On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 01:42:23 GMT, invalid AT erehwon DOT invalid (Graaagh the
> >Mighty) wrote:
> >
> >>>Note that you are asking questions about compiler implementation internals that
> >>>are off topic in comp.lang.c.
> >>
> >>I fail to see how that is relevant in comp.os.msdos.djgpp.
> >
> >because this was crossposted to many groups. So he gets an answer
> >relevant to that group. Its always worth reading the group list.
>
> The group list, as displayed by Free Agent, was "comp.os.msdos.djgpp".
> (It appears in the window title when an article is being viewed. The
> title changes to the subject line when writing an article.)
>
> Don't, by the way, suggest I use another news reader. The alternatives
> make my skin crawl. One comes from Microsoft. Netscape's regularly
> hangs the OS. The only remaining free ones for Windoze I am aware of
> are crummy ports of Unix ones, and get the worst of both worlds, as
> they use the crappy Windoze interface but don't stick to its standards
> and you need a degree in rocket science and advanced linear algebra in
> order to so much as configure them to talk to your ISP's news server,
> let alone actually subscribe a group and read 1 article from it.
>
> (DJGPP, fortunately, doesn't get "the worst of both worlds", although
> RSXNTDJ did during its heyday. It is no more rocket science than any
> other C compiler out there -- arguably the snazzy commercial ones are
> worse for that because they hide some of the process and then fail in
> obscure ways you don't know how to fix, and then you don't have a
> newsgroup for support, you have their hugely expensive "toll-free"
> number. And it doesn't pretend to be a Windoze program, nor does it
> need a GUI to be used effectively. Unlike, say, your editor, or your
> newsreader, where you want to have multiple windows open at once and
> to be able to navigate visually rather than by the usual process of
> "hit the eight bucky keys and the other key, frantically escape out of
> the unfamiliar prompt, go to the help file, try to read it, try to get
> out of the help browser, fail, try to find the section of the help
> file about exiting the help browser, hit the eight bucky keys and the
> other key...")
>
> >The result of the COMPILATION is some translated text which may be an
> >object module, or may be a hippo. ISO doesn't define that.
>
> If so, they made a rather large oversight, since that means I can call
> my program that occasionally reboots the machine and otherwise
> generates pretty Mandelbrot fractals "an ANSI C Compiler" and nobody
> can prove me wrong... All I have to do is make it able to read a
> source file, and proceed to generate a Mandelbrot fractal (or,
> perhaps, reboot the machine)...
>
> >The result of your PROGRAM is the output. As a C programmer you should
> >care about the latter, not the former.
>
> The result of that includes its speed of execution and its memory
> requirements, and that gets to the heart of the matter the original
> poster was questioning.
>
> >(In CLC, the result of a program is pretty much defined by ISO as
> >being the output. Who cares what the compiler produces ? thats
> >implementation specific stuff.)
>
> Well, if the compiler doesn't actually produce object code that runs
> as the program on the CPU involved, I'd become a tad concerned.
>
> >Could be, but ANSI/ISO don't care and nor should the OP.
>
> I hate to burst your theoretical bubble, but programmers can and will
> care about the code speed and memory requirements, and this isn't even
> wrong. Why, otherwise, do they make *optimizers*?
> --
> Bill Gates: "No computer will ever need more than 640K of RAM." -- 1980
> "There's nobody getting rich writing software that I know of." -- 1980
> "This antitrust thing will blow over." -- 1998
> Combine neo, an underscore, and one thousand sixty-one to make my hotmail addy.
- Raw text -