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]
I don't believe you know what your talking about. That's why we all left out
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
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
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.
Matt
> 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: