Richard Heathfield wrote:
> rosewater@mailinator.com said:
> > The situation is this: Navia has invested a bit of time in making a
> > Linux version of his notoriously poor compiler. Under the terms of the
> > GPL, he has two choices: he can distribute the resulting program under
> > the GPL, or send it to /dev/null.
>
> Indeed. And he has chosen the latter. That is *his* choice to make, not
> yours or mine.

I didn't deny that it's his choice: my point was that he's exercized
this choice in a foolish and selfish way.

>
> > There is *no way* for Navia to make money now, but he'd rather write
> > off the time he spent porting to Linux rather than give people access
> > to his compiler with the same spirit of freedom and generosity with
> > which he benefited from the GPL'd components he wanted to include in
> > it.
>
> Perhaps. But I think it more likely that he doesn't reveal his source code
> because he knows full well that it will not withstand expert scrutiny.

I'm sure there's truth in that too!

santosh wrote:
> rosewater@mailinator.com wrote:
> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> jacob navia said:
> >>
> >> > Hi
> >> >
> >> > In this forum, there was a thread that mentioned that GNU code is
> >> > being used by lcc-win32.
> >>
> >> Before the anonytrolls get started, can I just point out that Mr
> >> Navia's response to discovering that his product violates the GPL
> >> licence seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable one.
>
> <snip>
>
> > The situation is this: Navia has invested a bit of time in making a
> > Linux version of his notoriously poor compiler. Under the terms of the
> > GPL, he has two choices: he can distribute the resulting program under
> > the GPL, or send it to /dev/null.
>
> Or use a GPL compliant license.

Indeed.

> > There is *no way* for Navia to make money now,
>
> The GPL doesn't prohibit selling software covered by it.

Of course not. But as I'm sure you're aware, in these days where
distributing software on the internet is so cheap and easy, free
software developers make most of their money through support
contracts. Obviously there's a big problem with that business model
for Navia - he knows as much about C as my mother's cat. Even if he
did get people to sign up to a support contract, it's unlikely they'd
ever renew it: an emotional stream of abuse with little basis in
technical knowledge is not exactly what you want from tech support,
but if this group is anything to go by then that's just what Navia
would provide.

rosewater@mailinator.com wrote:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:

Stop replying to yourself.

Richard

In article <ffh6n2$bie$1@news.xmission.com> gazelle@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
> In article <JqAKs7.876@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl> wrote:
> >In article <ff87nv$n9a$1@pcls6.std.com> pacman@TheWorld.com (Alan Curry) writes:
> >...
> > > But compilers don't write object files. They write text files containing
> > > assembly code. Assemblers and linkers write object files...
> >
> >Wrong. The first Pascal compiler I ever did use (the original compiler
> >from ETH Zuerich for CDC systems) did write out the binary directly, in
> >a single pass. And I have known many compilers that *never* did use an
> >assembler in whatever form.
>
> Would you feel better if Alan has explicitly used the implied word "most"
> in his statement?

Depends on how he defines most. Most compilers I have encountered did *not*
use the assembler. The first compiler that did use assembler that I
encountered was the C compiler on Unix vs. 6, but that was about 10 years
after playing with many other compilers.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) writes:

> rosewater@mailinator.com wrote:
>
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> Stop replying to yourself.
>
> Richard

"Indeed. It is most unedifying behaviour to which one must object most
profusely."

[On the few occasions in this reply where I have used the word "you", it
refers to Richard Bos. Where I mean a more generic "you", I have used the
appalling neologism "yougeneric".]

Richard Bos said:

> rosewater@mailinator.com wrote:
>
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> Stop replying to yourself.

I have not done so. I have no need to hide behind sock puppets. You have
made the mistake of believing one of the group trolls.

I have no idea who rosewater@mailinator.com is, but I do know that he or
she isn't me. Nor does he or she accurately reflect my views about Mr
Navia's "contributions" to the comp.lang.c newsgroup. It is in fact the
case that the opinion of rosewater@mailinator.com about the actions Mr
Navia describes as having taken re GPL in the OP on this thread appears to
be diametrically opposed to my own opinion. It is a strange sock puppet
(on Usenet, at least) that disagrees 100% with his purported puppetmaster.

It appears to be fairly common practice among trolls in comp.lang.c
nowadays to accuse regular contributors of setting up sock puppets to
bolster the apparent popularity of their viewpoint. It is easy mud to
sling, as any denial can be countered with the Mandy Rice-Davies quote,
"well, he would say that, wouldn't he?" - and in the minds of fools, this
is an effective riposte. What those who believe it fail to consider is
that "he would say that" *whether or not* the accusation is true. So when
a regular contributor is charged with sock puppetry, what yougeneric would
be best advised to consider is not the nature of the attack, but rather
what yougeneric know about the attacker and what yougeneric know about the
attackee, so to speak. That is, the facts (one way or the other) are
likely to be unprovable, so all yougeneric have to go on is the characters
of those involved.

In this case, the accusations of sock puppetry have come from a
self-confessed troll (no, not you, Richard! I do not consider you to be a
troll), which tells us all we need to know about the nature of the
attacker - i.e. it is someone who has openly acknowledged that their
purpose in posting to this newsgroup is to provoke angry responses, from
which the troll presumably gets some kind of bizarre pleasure.

So - what of the attackee?

Sock puppets are used for bolstering a weak argument, usually on a matter
of opinion rather than fact (since facts are normally so easy to
establish, whereas opinions are much more susceptible to debate and
apparent popularity). The intent of a sock puppetmaster, it would appear,
is to suggest that there is more support for his views than is in fact the
case.

But, as regular readers of this newsgroup will be only too well aware, I am
not, and never have been, particularly bothered about the apparent
popularity of my views in this newsgroup. (Obviously it's pleasant for me
to find that other people whom I respect agree with me, but it's even more
pleasant when I find that they /dis/agree with me, because that means that
I'm in with a chance of learning something.) And therefore I, speaking in
my capacity as attackee, see no value whatsoever in having my views (very
imperfectly) parroted by some random, nameless third party.

In fact, I cannot recall any regular contributor whose knowledge of C I
respect (which includes you, by the way) being bothered about popularity.
We are more interested in being right than in being popular. Otherwise,
we'd all be voiding main and fflushing stdin and getsing, wouldn't we?

And therefore I treat with disbelief and disdain the accusations of trolls
that such-and-such is using sock puppets, where "such-and-such" is someone
like yourself, Keith, Jack, or others of that calibre. I find it
surprising that you do not adopt the same policy.

The obvious solution here is to treat the machinations of trolls with the
respect or contempt that yougeneric, as an independent mind, feel they
deserve.

For the record, at least as far as I can recall, I have only *ever* posted
to comp.lang.c under four names: the obvious three are "Richard
Heathfield", "rjh" (three of the four bona fide initials of my name), and
"Strangely Placed".

The last of these is, to regulars, an obvious and mildly witty reference to
a sig I've had for over eight years. I used "Strangely Placed" only very
occasionally, to post to clc when away from my usual machine (which is why
it was mildly witty, to those who appreciate such things). It was a Google
Groups account, which has almost certainly lapsed, and which for clarity's
sake I hereby announce that I will never, ever, ever use again - an easy
target for pseudosockpuppetmasters, then, but hey, any fool can forge a
header.

(And the fourth? Well, I forget the fourth, as it was for just a few
months, several years ago - I believe it was because I'd left my former
ISP, and hadn't yet gotten around to setting up a new Web site yet, but it
doesn't really matter. What does matter is that, during that time, I was
not posting under any other name.)

Again for the record: I have not, on this newsgroup or any other, ever used
a sock puppet for any reason whatsoever. Nor will I ever do so.

You, of all people, should know that I have been involved in very animated
discussions (elseUsenet) where it would have been much more tempting to
use a sock puppet than has ever been the case in comp.lang.c, and you
should also know that I did not do so (because, as you will recall from
those threads, what little support I got came from people you knew from
long acquaintance not to be sock puppets). So what you are suggesting is
against all common sense.

If you still think I'm sock-puppeting, please explain why in a direct reply
to this article (and please offer some genuine evidence to support your
claim). Otherwise, naturally I will assume your silence to indicate
acceptance ("qui tacet consentire videtur") of the points I have made in
this article.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

In article <471c7ee3.336718628@news.xs4all.nl>,
Richard Bos <rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
>rosewater@mailinator.com wrote:
>
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>Stop replying to yourself.
>
>Richard

Yes, Shari Lewis would be proud.

In article <lo-dnRKYt-TLE4Ha4p2dnAA@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>[On the few occasions in this reply where I have used the word "you", it
>refers to Richard Bos. Where I mean a more generic "you", I have used the
>appalling neologism "yougeneric".]
>
>Richard Bos said:
>
>> rosewater@mailinator.com wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>> Stop replying to yourself.
>
>I have not done so. I have no need to hide behind sock puppets. You have
>made the mistake of believing one of the group trolls.

(rest of stupid denial - clipped)

Gee, a denial. Wow. Are we surprised?

In article <lo-dnRKYt-TLE4Ha4p2dnAA@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
....
>Again for the record: I have not, on this newsgroup or any other, ever used
>a sock puppet for any reason whatsoever. Nor will I ever do so.

(Sung to the strains of Beethoven's Fifth)
I am not gay. I did nothing wrong. I love my wife.
(Idaho Sen. Larry Craig)

>If you still think I'm sock-puppeting, please explain why in a direct reply
>to this article (and please offer some genuine evidence to support your
>claim). Otherwise, naturally I will assume your silence to indicate
>acceptance ("qui tacet consentire videtur") of the points I have made in
>this article.

Yeah, right.

gazelle@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

> In article <lo-dnRKYt-TLE4Ha4p2dnAA@bt.com>,
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> ...
>>Again for the record: I have not, on this newsgroup or any other, ever used
>>a sock puppet for any reason whatsoever. Nor will I ever do so.
>
> (Sung to the strains of Beethoven's Fifth)
> I am not gay. I did nothing wrong. I love my wife.
> (Idaho Sen. Larry Craig)
>
>>If you still think I'm sock-puppeting, please explain why in a direct reply
>>to this article (and please offer some genuine evidence to support your
>>claim). Otherwise, naturally I will assume your silence to indicate
>>acceptance ("qui tacet consentire videtur") of the points I have made in
>>this article.
>
> Yeah, right.

Is it just me, or is RH becoming more & more "eloquent" with every
post? I think he thinks he's Oscar Wilde or Laurence Olivier.

In article <ufhuu4-638.ln1@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rgrdev@gmail.com> wrote:
>gazelle@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>
>> In article <lo-dnRKYt-TLE4Ha4p2dnAA@bt.com>,
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> ...
>>>Again for the record: I have not, on this newsgroup or any other, ever used
>>>a sock puppet for any reason whatsoever. Nor will I ever do so.
>>
>> (Sung to the strains of Beethoven's Fifth)
>> I am not gay. I did nothing wrong. I love my wife.
>> (Idaho Sen. Larry Craig)

I forgot the opening bars. It starts with "Let me be clear..."
(sung to the famous opening bars of the Fifth)

>>>If you still think I'm sock-puppeting, please explain why in a direct reply
>>>to this article (and please offer some genuine evidence to support your
>>>claim). Otherwise, naturally I will assume your silence to indicate
>>>acceptance ("qui tacet consentire videtur") of the points I have made in
>>>this article.
>>
>> Yeah, right.
>
>Is it just me, or is RH becoming more & more "eloquent" with every
>post? I think he thinks he's Oscar Wilde or Laurence Olivier.

Indeed.

rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
> rosewater@mailinator.com wrote:
>
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> Stop replying to yourself.

Though I have no direct evidence one way or the other, I firmly
believe that "rosewater" is not a sock puppet for Richard Heathfield.
In my opinion, you (RB) owe RH an apology.

I've read RH's lengthy followup, but I formed this opinion before I
read it.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

In article <JqB7pC.5Fx@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl> wrote:
>In article <ffh6n2$bie$1@news.xmission.com>
>gazelle@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
> > In article <JqAKs7.876@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl> wrote:
> > >In article <ff87nv$n9a$1@pcls6.std.com> pacman@TheWorld.com (Alan
>Curry) writes:
> > >...
> > > > But compilers don't write object files. They write text files containing
> > > > assembly code. Assemblers and linkers write object files...
> > >
> > >Wrong. The first Pascal compiler I ever did use (the original compiler
> > >from ETH Zuerich for CDC systems) did write out the binary directly, in
> > >a single pass. And I have known many compilers that *never* did use an
> > >assembler in whatever form.
> >
> > Would you feel better if Alan has explicitly used the implied word "most"
> > in his statement?
>
>Depends on how he defines most. Most compilers I have encountered did *not*
>use the assembler. The first compiler that did use assembler that I
>encountered was the C compiler on Unix vs. 6, but that was about 10 years
>after playing with many other compilers.

Since this apparently wooshed over everyone's head, the point was:
someone is offering a compiler for Linux, complaining about the license
of libbfd which he used to write object files, but if he'd made any
effort to adapt to the local way of doing things (instead of just
dropping his big MS-style bomb into foreign territory) he wouldn't have
been writing object files at all and libbfd would not have been
involved!

--
Alan Curry
pacman@world.std.com

Alan Curry wrote:

> In article <JqB7pC.5Fx@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl>
> wrote:
>>In article <ffh6n2$bie$1@news.xmission.com>
>>gazelle@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>> > In article <JqAKs7.876@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl>
>> > wrote:
>> > >In article <ff87nv$n9a$1@pcls6.std.com> pacman@TheWorld.com (Alan
>>Curry) writes:
>> > >...
>> > > > But compilers don't write object files. They write text files
>> > > > containing assembly code. Assemblers and linkers write object
>> > > > files...
>> > >
>> > >Wrong. The first Pascal compiler I ever did use (the original
>> > >compiler from ETH Zuerich for CDC systems) did write out the
>> > >binary directly, in
>> > >a single pass. And I have known many compilers that *never* did
>> > >use an assembler in whatever form.
>> >
>> > Would you feel better if Alan has explicitly used the implied word
>> > "most" in his statement?
>>
>>Depends on how he defines most. Most compilers I have encountered did
>>*not*
>>use the assembler. The first compiler that did use assembler that I
>>encountered was the C compiler on Unix vs. 6, but that was about 10
>>years after playing with many other compilers.
>
> Since this apparently wooshed over everyone's head, the point was:
> someone is offering a compiler for Linux, complaining about the
> license of libbfd which he used to write object files, but if he'd
> made any effort to adapt to the local way of doing things (instead of
> just dropping his big MS-style bomb into foreign territory) he
> wouldn't have been writing object files at all and libbfd would not
> have been involved!

Presumably you are saying he should have grokked lcc-win32 to produce
assembler source code? If so, he still has the problem of writing in
ELF code generation into his assembler.

Probably the easiest fix for him is to require each user to install
libbfd separately; and in most Linuxes it comes preinstalled.

In article <ffir0d$92k$1@aioe.org>, santosh <santosh.k83@gmail.com> wrote:
>Alan Curry wrote:
>> someone is offering a compiler for Linux, complaining about the
>> license of libbfd which he used to write object files, but if he'd
>> made any effort to adapt to the local way of doing things (instead of
>> just dropping his big MS-style bomb into foreign territory) he
>> wouldn't have been writing object files at all and libbfd would not
>> have been involved!
>
>Presumably you are saying he should have grokked lcc-win32 to produce
>assembler source code? If so, he still has the problem of writing in
>ELF code generation into his assembler.

There's no reason a serious competitor to the GNU compiler couldn't feed its
output to the GNU assembler. (Not that I think a non-free x86-only compiler
is a serious competitor)

--
Alan Curry
pacman@world.std.com

In article <ffir0d$92k$1@aioe.org>, santosh <santosh.k83@gmail.com> wrote:
....
>Presumably you are saying he should have grokked lcc-win32 to produce
>assembler source code? If so, he still has the problem of writing in
>ELF code generation into his assembler.
>
>Probably the easiest fix for him is to require each user to install
>libbfd separately; and in most Linuxes it comes preinstalled.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

Alan Curry wrote:

> In article <ffir0d$92k$1@aioe.org>, santosh <santosh.k83@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>Alan Curry wrote:
>>> someone is offering a compiler for Linux, complaining about the
>>> license of libbfd which he used to write object files, but if he'd
>>> made any effort to adapt to the local way of doing things (instead
>>> of just dropping his big MS-style bomb into foreign territory) he
>>> wouldn't have been writing object files at all and libbfd would not
>>> have been involved!
>>
>>Presumably you are saying he should have grokked lcc-win32 to produce
>>assembler source code? If so, he still has the problem of writing in
>>ELF code generation into his assembler.
>
> There's no reason a serious competitor to the GNU compiler couldn't
> feed its output to the GNU assembler.

I rather feel that this option would entail more work for jacob than
implementing object code generation directly.

> (Not that I think a non-free x86-only compiler is a serious
> competitor)

It could conceivably be a competitor on the x86. Right now though, the
main competitors to gcc on the x86 are MS's and Intel's compilers.

In article <ffipuq$fmq$1@pcls6.std.com>,
Alan Curry <pacman@TheWorld.com> wrote:

>Since this apparently wooshed over everyone's head, the point was:
>someone is offering a compiler for Linux, complaining about the license
>of libbfd which he used to write object files, but if he'd made any
>effort to adapt to the local way of doing things (instead of just
>dropping his big MS-style bomb into foreign territory) he wouldn't have
>been writing object files at all and libbfd would not have been
>involved!

I use a true Unix system (Unix 95 certified) most of the time.
The vendor compilers do not produce assembly code unless specifically
requested. Instead, the "compile-only" pass first runs a front end
which produces a binary WHIRL file and then the language-independant
back-end part of the "compile-only" pass transforms that to object code.
It's been that way since at least 1996 (if not earlier.)
http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/OpenAD/open64A.pdf

Note that this is -not a "MS-style bomb into foreign territory";
this was used for highly optimizing Unix compilers.

So I don't know which "local way of doing things" you are talking
about.
--
"Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature."
-- Rich Kulawiec

In article <ffis8o$eg6$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
Walter Roberson <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:
>I use a true Unix system (Unix 95 certified) most of the time.
[...]
>
>So I don't know which "local way of doing things" you are talking
>about.

The local way on GNU systems (see Subject line) which jacob was actually
talking about (which happens to follow old unix tradition). I didn't notice
any mention of "true UNIX(r)" until now.

--
Alan Curry
pacman@world.std.com

In article <ffisua$1b0$1@pcls6.std.com>,
Alan Curry <pacman@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>In article <ffis8o$eg6$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
>Walter Roberson <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:
>>I use a true Unix system (Unix 95 certified) most of the time.
>[...]

>>So I don't know which "local way of doing things" you are talking
>>about.

>The local way on GNU systems (see Subject line) which jacob was actually
>talking about (which happens to follow old unix tradition).

What are "GNU systems" ? I thought Jacob's target in this instance
was Linux; Linux is not GNU.

>I didn't notice
>any mention of "true UNIX(r)" until now.

You indicated that Jacob was introducing a MS 'bomb'; I demonstrated
that, on the contrary, real official Unix systems used the
direct-to-binary technique before MS.

You speak of "unix tradition", but not even -one- Linux version
has been Unix certified. How do the compilers on actual Unix systems
operate?
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/catalog.htm
--
We regret to announce that sub-millibarn resolution bio-hyperdimensional
plasmatic space polyimaging has been delayed until the release
of Windows Vista SP2.

roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:

> In article <ffisua$1b0$1@pcls6.std.com>,
> Alan Curry <pacman@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>In article <ffis8o$eg6$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
>>Walter Roberson <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:
>>>I use a true Unix system (Unix 95 certified) most of the time.
>>[...]
>
>>>So I don't know which "local way of doing things" you are talking
>>>about.
>
>>The local way on GNU systems (see Subject line) which jacob was actually
>>talking about (which happens to follow old unix tradition).
>
> What are "GNU systems" ? I thought Jacob's target in this instance
> was Linux; Linux is not GNU.

Huh? Linux "systems" are nearly always Gnu systems. Or should I say most
Gnu Operating Systems use the Linux kernel.

>
>>I didn't notice
>>any mention of "true UNIX(r)" until now.
>
> You indicated that Jacob was introducing a MS 'bomb'; I demonstrated
> that, on the contrary, real official Unix systems used the
> direct-to-binary technique before MS.
>
> You speak of "unix tradition", but not even -one- Linux version
> has been Unix certified. How do the compilers on actual Unix systems
> operate?
> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/catalog.htm

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:51:14 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:

>So - what of the attackee?

You should have stopped here. The bit below felt uncomfortably like a
self-justification, and was unnecessary as we all know you are very
unlikely to stoop to sockpuppetry.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

rosewater@mailinator.com wrote:
> santosh wrote:
>
.... snip all Navia baiting ...
>
>> The GPL doesn't prohibit selling software covered by it.
>
> Of course not. But as I'm sure you're aware, in these days where
> distributing software on the internet is so cheap and easy, free
> software developers make most of their money through support
> contracts. Obviously there's a big problem with that business model

No, there are other methods. For example, the copyright holder can
release his code under GPL (or equivalent), making it free to all
who are willing to follow the license, and can still allow others
to use the same code under a different license. This can be useful
to enable code use without making the using source available to the
world, and MAY provide income to the copyright holder.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Mark McIntyre said:

> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:51:14 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
> Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
>>So - what of the attackee?
>
> You should have stopped here. The bit below felt uncomfortably like a
> self-justification, and was unnecessary as we all know you are very
> unlikely to stoop to sockpuppetry.

Tell that to Richard Bos.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

"Dik T. Winter" wrote:
> gazelle@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>> Dik T. Winter <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl> wrote:
>>> pacman@TheWorld.com (Alan Curry) writes:
>>>...
>>>> But compilers don't write object files. They write text files
>>>> containing assembly code. Assemblers and linkers write object
>>>> files...
>>>
>>> Wrong. The first Pascal compiler I ever did use (the original
>>> compiler from ETH Zuerich for CDC systems) did write out the
>>> binary directly, in a single pass. And I have known many
>>> compilers that *never* did use an assembler in whatever form.
>>
>> Would you feel better if Alan has explicitly used the implied
>> word "most" in his statement?
>
> Depends on how he defines most. Most compilers I have encountered
> did *not* use the assembler. The first compiler that did use
> assembler that I encountered was the C compiler on Unix vs. 6, but
> that was about 10 years after playing with many other compilers.

In general, using an assembler can be a nuisance, because of
external dependencies, and greatly extended compiler processing
time. However use of a separate assembler is very handy when the
(basically) same compiler is to be used on various architectures.
It also leaves an immediately recognizable (and thus debuggable)
intermediate statement of the program.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com