🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <18120@winchester.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes:
>Note that "maturity" of code generators (and compiler technology) in
>general, is unfortunately even less well-defined than mips&mflops,
>and it's a lot more than generating good code.

Very true.  The real question is suitability for real world tasks
in today's (and tomorrow's) multivendor computing environment.

>I once took a stab at a few verifiable metrics for compiler system
>"maturity".  Here are a few quick samples:
>- can you mix and match different languages, like C, FORTRAN, Pascal?
>	- can you source-debug them, too?
>	- can you do the same with COBOL, PL/1, or ADA and the others?
>		(much harder; here's where linkage conventions and/or
>		symbol tables break)

True.  Many development systems do break here.  This is unfortunately
true of some of the best software development Unix platforms which have
been extensively tailored for C or C/F77 at the expense of everything 
else.

The real issue here is no so much one of compilers, however, but of
the actual object code produced and used on a given system.  The 88K
OCS (Object compatibility standard) addresses most of these issues and
is designed to provide extensibility so that future requirements can
be met.  And compilers from multiple companies can be intermixed --
even across the language spectrum.  In fact, there is a standard 88K
calling sequence which the ABI specifies which is supported by the
various compilers.  As has been amply pointed out, this is lacking 
elsewhere in the industry.  Hopefully, the rest of the computing world
will follow our lead to true interoperability.

Robert Cousins

Speaking for myself alone.