Liste des Groupes | Revenir à cl c |
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 11:26:03 +0000I don't support arm64 as a native C (only via intermediate C). Why, is there something peculiar about that architecture?
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
On 23/03/2024 07:26, James Kuyper wrote:Does it apply to your aarch64 compiler as well?bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:>On 22/03/2024 17:14, James Kuyper wrote:[...]>If you want to tell a system not only what a program must do, but>
also how it must do it, you need to use a lower-level language
than C.
Which one?
That's up to you. The point is, C is NOT that language.
I'm asking which /mainstream/ HLL is lower level than C. So
specifically ruling out assembly.
>
If there is no such choice, then this is the problem: it has to be C
or nothing.
>>I don't think anyone seriously wants to switch to assembly for the>
sort of tasks they want to use C for.
Why not? Assembly provides the kind of control you're looking for; C
does not. If that kind of control is important to you, you have to
find a language which provides it. If not assembler or C, what
would you use?
Among non-mainstream ones, my own would fit the bill. Since I write
the implementations, I can ensure the compiler doesn't have a mind of
its own.
>
However if somebody else tried to implement it, then I can't
guarantee the same behaviour. This would need to somehow be enforced
with a precise language spec, or mine would need to be a reference
implementation with a lot of test cases.
>
>
-----------------
>
Take this program:
>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
goto L;
0x12345678;
L:
printf("Hello, World!\n");
}
>
If I use my compiler, then that 12345678 pattern gets compiled into
the binary (because it is loaded into a register then discarded).
That means I can use that value as a marker or sentinel which can be
searched for.
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.