🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9207230635.AA13746@rtl.cygnus.com>, tiemann@cygnus.com writes:
|> 
|>    Return-Path: help-g++-request@prep.ai.mit.edu
|>    To: help-g++@prep.ai.mit.edu
|>    Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:42:25 GMT
|>    Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
|>    From: mehr@fluke.tc.fluke.com (Manooch Mehr)
|>    Sender: help-g++-request@prep.ai.mit.edu
|>    Subject: generating source code
|>    
|>        hi :
|>    
|>          I am using g++ version 2.1 . Is there an easy way to get the compiler to generate C source codes.
|>          Please, email your response.
|>    										Manooch
|> 
|> GNU C++ does not generate C source.  The GNU compilers support about
|> 20 different machine targets.  It's far better to port the backend to
                                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|> a specific processor than to rely on a proprietary compiler for
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|> translating C code into asm code.
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|> 
|> Michael

What the hell are you talking about? It seems vastly easier to translate a 
single code specification to a single code specification, i.e, C++ to Ansi C.
Most of the problems I see about g++ and gcc has to do with machine specifics.
Getting the machine dependancies out would probably simply g++ considerably.
This is exactly what cfront does. Vendor compiler are in general better than
gcc, they produce better object code and compile faster. I would much rather
translate than compile. The tradeoff is that compiling to object code
should produce some optimizations that can't be found when translating from
C++ to C and then optimizating.

-- 

======================
Bill Volz
Chevron Oil Field Research Co.
Exploration Research/Geophysics Division.
P.O. Box 446, La Habra, CA 90633-0446
Phone: (310) 694-9340