 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Does a comiler make code or does it make a program out of code ?
>
> Why is called code ?
>
> Isn't "code" really just programming instructions ?
A compiler produces object code or "machine code"...
It just depends on your definition of code... pseudo code, C++ code,
assembly code... MATRIX code... hehe Code is used to describe a lot of
different stages.
The "machine code" refers to the object code, the "code for a program"
usually refers to the language specific text instructions.
The disassembly (not decompile) of "machine code" is simply a list of
processors words like move, put, get etc.
Code is used in lots of places to mean different things, so the point could
be argued forever.
Back to the original thread though, I welcome any change in compiler or
language as long as it produces a more efficient program.
Weren't the original plans to move to MSVC++ anyway? (please correct me if
I'm wrong, don't want to mislead anyone there)
--
Lance.
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote:
: Having said that -
: Does a comiler make code or does it make a program out of code ?
: Why is called code ?
: Isn't "code" really just programming instructions ?
Ok, I should have said "machine code" instead of just "code", but I thought
that it was enough to let it be implicit.
Machine code are the bytes that the CPU can directly interpret.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
> Weren't the original plans to move to MSVC++ anyway? (please correct me if
> I'm wrong, don't want to mislead anyone there)
The plans are to move towards C++ but whether MSVC will be the development
environment is unknown to me.
--
Wishing you Seasons Greetings, A Merry Christmas, and A Happy New Year !
Ken Tyler - 1200+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> Lance Birch wrote:
>
> > Weren't the original plans to move to MSVC++ anyway? (please correct me
if
> > I'm wrong, don't want to mislead anyone there)
>
> The plans are to move towards C++ but whether MSVC will be the development
> environment is unknown to me.
Thanks for clearing that up.
--
Lance.
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote :
>
> Does a comiler make code or does it make a program out of code ?
>
Yes. A compiler makes code out of code. Hope I've cleared that up...
Using MSVC++ as a compiler won't make much of a difference in the
program itself. The problem, if there is one, would be if they switched over
to MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes). That is the single largest bloater of
code in the universe.
I suspect that they will write straight to API though so that the code
can be compiled from source in any C++ compiler. That would make more sense
considering the history so far.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> "Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote :
> >
> > Does a comiler make code or does it make a program out of code ?
> >
>
> Yes. A compiler makes code out of code. Hope I've cleared that up...
>
> Using MSVC++ as a compiler won't make much of a difference in the
> program itself. The problem, if there is one, would be if they switched over
> to MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes). That is the single largest bloater of
> code in the universe.
>
> I suspect that they will write straight to API though so that the code
> can be compiled from source in any C++ compiler. That would make more sense
> considering the history so far.
Given the emphasis on portability in all the C versions, I couldn't see
anything like that happening.
PoD.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What about Borland (Inprise ;-)) C++ compiler? No one mentions it. Is it not
of the same class as Watcom and MS?
--
Regards,
Sander
Nieminen Juha <war### [at] punarastascstutfi> schreef in berichtnieuws
385e58f5@news.povray.org...
> Pabs <pab### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> : What is the POV-Team going to do now that Watcom C++ is dying
> : Please don't go to MSVC++
>
> Actually the MSVC compile of povray seems to be faster than the watcom
> compile.
> Who cares which compiler is used as long as it makes faster code?
>
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sander wrote:
>
> What about Borland (Inprise ;-)) C++ compiler? No one mentions it. Is it not
> of the same class as Watcom and MS?
No, it isn't. It's about twice as expensive and does not optimize
as good. Watcom has long been the compiler producing the fastest code,
no overtaken by MS.
Markus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Markus Becker wrote in message <3860EE66.F112F868@student.uni-siegen.de>...
>Sander wrote:
>>
>> What about Borland (Inprise ;-)) C++ compiler? No one mentions it. Is it
not
>> of the same class as Watcom and MS?
>
>No, it isn't. It's about twice as expensive and does not optimize
>as good. Watcom has long been the compiler producing the fastest code,
>no overtaken by MS.
How does GCC compare for optimizing code?
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> How does GCC compare for optimizing code?
As far as I know, they are about equal. (MS and GCC)
Markus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
