🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul21.234225.1664@tc.fluke.COM> mehr@fluke.tc.fluke.com (Manooch Mehr) writes:
>      I am using g++ version 2.1 . Is there an easy way to get the compiler
> to generate C source codes.

There isn't even a hard way.  There's a Very Hard Way Indeed, but I don't want
to even think about tackling it.
-- 
	-Colin

In article <1992Jul21.234225.1664@tc.fluke.COM>
  mehr@fluke.tc.fluke.com (Manooch Mehr) writes:
>
> 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

Hello manooch and other interested parties.

Everyone I have asked, including info from FSF, indicates that the
highest version available for g++ is 1.40 or so, while the highest
version for the g++ library is 2.2.2 or so.

How are so many folks talking about g++ 2.1?  Since I am not on the
internet (a long story unto itself) I cannot do anonymous FTP's even
if I am handed the addresses on a silver LCD screen.  Would someone
_please!_ e-mail to me or post info about where I can get the sources
via e-mail?

Also, the postings I have seen in this newsgroup leave me confused:
Do I need gcc to compile g++?  Or can I do it with my native C
compiler?  (My target is an HP 9000/800 series machine.)

If you reply by e-mail, please reply to one of:

jacob@informix.com
uunet!informix.com!jacob

Thanks much.

		-- Jake
-- 
----------------Obligatory smart-$$$ remark:---------------------
| There's two kinds of people: Those who categorize people into |
| two groups and those who don't.   (Barth's Aging proverb.)    |
-----------------------------------------------jacob@informix.com

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

I would hasten to disagree with all of your points.

+ I find GCC produces equivilent or better code than the supplied compiler
  on the machines I use (Sequent i386, SPARC, DECstation,.

+ Most of the errors in g++ appear to stem from incorrect implementation
  in the g++ front-end, vague C++ language semantics (``moving target'').
  Since gcc uses the same back-end, the backend tends to be very robust
  and stable.

+ You can not debug cfront-produced C code. That's a major reason for
  using a real compiler (or having a way to pass this information through
  your C compiler).

+ Cfront can't do somethings G++ can do, because it must translate to C
  (i.e. it has restrictions on 'inline' functions).

All this said and done, I still think it's useful to have a C backend
to gcc/g++ -- in part, because I want to use g++ on a particular
machine (KSR-1) for which I don't want to build a backend (it's a pain
to debug, and secondary to my immediate goals).