Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet From: bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2 Subject: Re: Translating M2 -> C Message-ID: <404@esunix.UUCP> Date: Mon, 20-Jul-87 10:31:38 EDT Article-I.D.: esunix.404 Posted: Mon Jul 20 10:31:38 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jul-87 05:34:34 EDT References: <482@ivax.doc.ic.ac.uk> Distribution: comp Organization: Evans & Sutherland, Salt Lake City, Utah Lines: 23 in article <482@ivax.doc.ic.ac.uk>, dcw@doc.ic.ac.uk (Duncan C White) says: > > 4). Compilers conventionally produce assembler code. > This statement is only true in the UNIX(TM) world. It still just plain blows me away when I encounter people who have never used a compiler that didn't generate assembly code. My experience, measurments made on assemblers I've written and used, is that 40 to 60 percent of assembly time is lexical analysis. Formatting and writing assembly code in a compiler can add 10 or more percent to compilation times, in non optimizing compilers it can be 25%. Generating a linkable file directly is a major performance win. Why does the UNIX world tolerate such slow compilation? What Duncan suggests will work. But it will be sloooow. > > Duncan. > -- Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet Alternate: {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet I am solely responsible for what I say.