B
Bootstrap Bill
Are there any open source C++ compilers that will produce C code? I
understand the first C++ compilers operated this way.
understand the first C++ compilers operated this way.
J
Jack Klein
C++ compilers are off-topic in comp.lang.c.
--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ ftp://snurse-l.org/pub/acllc-c++/faq
F
Frank Schmitt
Bootstrap Bill said:
You might want to have a look at Comeau - it's not open source, but
it's cheap, and AFAIK does exactly what you want
(www.comeaucomputing.com)
HTH & kind regards
frank
T
those who know me have no need of my name
in comp.lang.c i read:
but note that the code produced isn't intended for human consumption or
later use, so it's not necessarily maintainable (at least not directly).
but note that the code produced isn't intended for human consumption or
later use, so it's not necessarily maintainable (at least not directly).
D
Dan Pop
In said:
And it's not portable C code, either. It's code fit for the target C
implementation(s) only.
Dan
G
Greg Comeau
Well, Comeau C++ does produce C as an implementation detail.
But that's not supposed to be a user concerns per se,
so Bootstrap should probably elaborate upon his needs,
and we can re-advise him from there. In other words,
what it the underlying need for the request in the first place?
S
Sheldon Simms
The OP was also asking for C compiliers for the 6809,
so I suspect he is looking for a why to compile C++
code for one or more platforms for which no C++ compiler
exists.
-Sheldon
D
Dan Pop
In said:
Then, he is wasting his time. Apart from the portability of the generated
C code issue, there is also the missing C++ library support issue.
Dan
T
Tristan Miller
Greetings.
This is mostly answered in the FAQ, wherein one should generally look before
posting:
http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q20.27.html
Bootstrap Bill said:
This is mostly answered in the FAQ, wherein one should generally look before
posting:
http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q20.27.html
B
Bootstrap Bill
Jack Klein said:
I asked about converting to C, so this is on topic.
B
Bootstrap Bill
Yes, that is exactly what I want to do..Sheldon Simms said:
B
Bootstrap Bill
That faq entry didn't even come close to answering my question. I want toTristan Miller said:
convert C++ to C, not compile C with a C++ compiler.
E
E. Robert Tisdale
Bootstrap said:
Please ignore Jack Klein. He gets cranky sometimes.
And is often short tempered with new subscribers.
But, when he feels like it, he can be one of the best contributors
to the comp.lang.c newsgroup. Just be patient.
E
E. Robert Tisdale
Bootstrap said:
You probably mean AT+T's cfront.
I used Google
http://www.google.com/
to search for
+"C++" +"cfront" +"back end"
and I found lots of stuff including
The C++ Front End
http://www.edg.com/cpp.html
I don't know whether any of these are "open source"
or whether any of them *emit* portable C code.
D
Default User
E. Robert Tisdale said:
Listen to Jack Klein. Ignore Trollsdale.
Brian Rodenborn
M
Mark McIntyre
Not really. In CLC. the topic here is the C /language/ rather than
specific implementations of it. And converting one language to another
is certainly nontopical.
ISTR that you wanted an implementation for a PIC of some sort -
comp.arch.embedded might be a better place to ask.
M
Micah Cowan
E. Robert Tisdale said:
That would be unwise.
Whether he was cranky or not I cannot determine, but he was
completely correct in pointing out that the question is
off-topic. We discuss *only* the C programming language here, not
tools to convert C++ to C code, not tools to edit C code; not
even tools to compile C code. Only the language itself is topical
here (besides the universally topical topic of topicality... such
as this message ;-) ) It is similarly off-topic in comp.lang.c++
as well.
You speak as one who has the authority to determine who is a good
contributor to these newsgroups, whereas so far you do not.
R
Richard Heathfield
Default said:
Indeed. In case anyone's been spending the last few years under a stone on
Mars, Jack Klein is one of the most clueful respondents on clc (can't speak
for clc++, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if he were highly respected
there, too).
J
John Smith
E. Robert Tisdale said:
ROTFL
! Sometimes this NG is better than "Seinfeld."
G
glen herrmannsfeldt
Mark McIntyre wrote:
(snip)
Converting one language to another is pretty questionable, but then what
group should it go under?
If this group only discussed the C language then it would be pretty
dull. Discussing whether or not some construct is allowed, I would
hope, would be on topic. Since it is not the C /language/ until that is
decided, then you wouldn't know if you could discuss it otherwise.
I would say that discussing a particular compiler's ability to compile
the C language could also be on topic, though the general subject of
compilers would not be. In a similar sense the ability, or inability,
of a translator to translate from or to standard C could be on topic,
though it would depend on the specific question.
In years past, the 6809 was considered a general purpose processor,
though now it may be more for the embedded market. The first C compiler
I owned was for the 6809, though.
It might be that this question is better for comp.lang.c++, which I
carefully snipped from this reply.
-- glen
(snip)
Converting one language to another is pretty questionable, but then what
group should it go under?
If this group only discussed the C language then it would be pretty
dull. Discussing whether or not some construct is allowed, I would
hope, would be on topic. Since it is not the C /language/ until that is
decided, then you wouldn't know if you could discuss it otherwise.
I would say that discussing a particular compiler's ability to compile
the C language could also be on topic, though the general subject of
compilers would not be. In a similar sense the ability, or inability,
of a translator to translate from or to standard C could be on topic,
though it would depend on the specific question.
In years past, the 6809 was considered a general purpose processor,
though now it may be more for the embedded market. The first C compiler
I owned was for the 6809, though.
It might be that this question is better for comp.lang.c++, which I
carefully snipped from this reply.
-- glen