Re: A86: What C-compilers have we got? [82/83/83+/85/86]
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A86: What C-compilers have we got? [82/83/83+/85/86]
Matt Johnson wrote:
> I don't believe you know what your talking about. That's why we all left out
Maybe that's why I'm asking the question!
> the possibility. I also left out the possibility that Santa will give me a
> Compaq iPaq and Microsoft will write common dialog boxes that will correctly
> allocate memory for choosing multiple files without writing an OS hook.
> Frankly, Assembly language is indentical to machine code in the same sense
> the letter A is indentical to its corresponding ASCII code. It isn't a
now I KNOW that's not true
> different language, and C programs do not get compiled into an ASCII file
> with an .asm extension. They get compiled into an object file, which is
Look at the source to small-c. From what I remember, they get compiled into
ascii files with .asm extensions
> machine code. If you want to see the asm code, you can use a debugger. You
> can assemble debugged object files code and debug assembled object files.
> Meaning they are functionally identical. Just like the number 15 is the same
> as hex value 0xF and binary %1111. All asm instructions are nmenonics,
> because ALL THEY DO is represent an exact, unchanging numerical opcode.
O.K.
I think you need a hard lesson in sensitivity. You have to understand that some
people out there don't exactly have the same knowledge as you, and by that,
means they are bound to make mistkes. If I made a mistake, o.k. I admit it. I
made a mistake. That's not that hard. However, I get the impression that you
think you are all high and mighty because you can go and explain in huge amounts
of sarcasm that you are right and they are wrong. All I wanted was an answer to
my question and why. True, you completed all that, but you did not have to do it
the way you chose.
> Matt
Mike
>
> > As I've read through all of this, I've noticed you've all left out a
> > possibility, and I'm wondering why.
> >
> > Why can't you just make a C-compiler that compiles into machine code? If
> it
> > compiles to asm, then it is only obvious that it will have to be compiled
> > AGAIN to machine code, so why don't you just skip the middleman and go
> > straight to machine code.
> >
> >Or, does this require too much time and/or programming experience?
Follow-Ups:
References: