S
spinoza1111
Sort of. Many of those switches would be the same if you were using
the same toolset to work on, say, FORTRAN (and yes, gcc has a FORTRAN
mode) or C++.
Not really. It's true of most existing systems, in fact, all I know of,
but it's not *required*. If I were to implement a compiler in which
the phases of translation all occurred in memory, and the results of
the "preprocessing" phases were implemented, not actually as pure text,
but as a linked list of structures containing things which had been
turned into tokens, well, that would probably be permitted. Indeed,
there's not strictly a requirement that I actually implement the phases
of translation *AT ALL* -- as long as you can't tell, by looking only
at the final output, that I didn't do them as described.
So that's the thing. Standard C isn't an implementation. It is up
Which is true, but too convenient for people who know very little
about compilers, because they've never written one. In the
bureaucratic sense the demiurge is to create an established Church out
of any real advance in human enlightenment (whether the Sermon on the
Mount or the third law of thermodynamics) lest further advance destroy
the careers of the priests. What's fascinating is this Scholastic
approach to C, which resembles the way in which the "Forty Year Old
Virgin" in the eponymous movie talks about sex:
"You know how when you grab a woman's breast... it feels like... a bag
of sand."
(The "heap" is a DOS term...it feels like a bag of sand).
"I dated this girl for a while... she was really a... nasty freak. She
just loved to... get down with... sex all the time. It was like...
anytime of day... she was like, 'Yeah, let's go! I'm so nasty!'" And
I'd be nailing her and she'd be like, 'Oh, you're nailing me! cool!'"
(The stack is not in the standard. I was in the sack with this stack,
and it screamed, "give it to me Seebie".)