Re: Support for export keyword ?
On Jan 20, 11:53 pm, Timothy Madden <terminato...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 20, 4:28 pm, Jerry Coffin <jerryvcof...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <4b56ed82$0$283$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
terminato...@gmail.com says...
[ ... ]
Oh crap ... so Intel and Comeau are but mere C++ to C translators !
No -- Intel produces object code directly.
That would surprise me. Every compiler today uses several
phases, the first of which parses and translates the code to an
intermediate representation.
Why do people bother to even mention/talk about such
pathetic excuses for a compiler ?
[...]
So, people talk about Comeau and Intel as the only ones that
implement export, because nothing else implements export. They talk
about Comeau, because it's the ONLY one that really supports export.
I well know C++ compilers are actually translators from C++ to
assembly language, but still there is a big difference between
a cheap C++ to C translator and a real C++ compiler. Big
difference !
None at all. As Ian said, you obviously don't know what you're
talking about. All compilers today (and ever since I can
remember) divide compilation into several phases. The first
phase (the front end) generates an intermediate code which the
following stages can use. In the case of EDG (the ones who've
actually implemented export), the front-end is designed so that
it can feed any one of a number of back-ends (and can easily be
adapted to other back-ends). Using C as an intermediate lanuage
simply means that you have a wide choice of compatible back-ends
readily available---it doesn't change anything with regards to
the quality of the front end. (One could almost say that C was
designed with this in mind. A portable assembler.)
And the EDG front end is without a doubt the best front end
currently available. Configure it to generate C, and add a high
quality C compiler as the back end, and you have one of the best
C++ compilers around.
This is exactly why such a good-looking, standards-conforming
pseudo "compiler" is not really wide-spread as others, real
ones, are, despite being less conforming and more expensive
:).
The reason Comeau isn't more widespread is purely commercial.
Their commercial budget is significantly less than that of
Microsoft or Sun. And of course, there are significant
advantages of using the "native" compiler: Sun CC under Solaris,
Microsoft under Windows, etc.
[...]
If only they would have a free Windows version that would work with
mingw32 gcc, that would be so cool !
Writing and maintaining a compiler is a lot of work. Some
people like to get paid for their work.
--
James Kanze