Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort

Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com>
11 Sep 2006 17:06:49 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
The History of the ALGOL Effort H.T.de.Beer@gmail.com (HT de Beer) (2006-08-14)
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2006-08-15)
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort Juergen.Kahrs@vr-web.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=) (2006-08-18)
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort p_ludemann@yahoo.com (Peter Ludemann) (2006-08-29)
Re: The History of the ALGOL Effort henry@spsystems.net (2006-09-11)
Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort walter@bytecraft.com (Walter Banks) (2006-09-11)
Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort Juergen.Kahrs@vr-web.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Kahrs?=) (2006-09-11)
Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com (Peter Flass) (2006-09-11)
Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2006-09-12)
Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort bonzini@gnu.org (Paolo Bonzini) (2006-09-12)
Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com (Peter Flass) (2006-09-12)
Re: Pascal vs. linkers, was The History of the ALGOL Effort news@tom.iecc.com (2006-09-12)
[4 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 11 Sep 2006 17:06:49 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 06-08-082 06-08-086 06-08-105 06-08-138 06-09-050
Keywords: C, Pascal, linker, history
Posted-Date: 11 Sep 2006 17:06:49 EDT

C and PL360 grew out of separate roots. I think the reason that
C had separate compilation was as least as much that the PDP11
memory wouldn't hold enough symbols. This was solved with link
editors and separate compilation. A culture has grown out of C's
linking traditions that remains long after linking is a necessity. I
have never heard an overwhelming reason why C should have
separate compilation.


Developing and selling C cross compilers for a living, I have found
that linking issues have high support requirements and conventional
linkers impact much of the gains that application wide optimization
brings to the application.


w..




Henry Spencer wrote:


> This experience had wider ramifications, too: PL360 compiled so much
> faster than IBM's glacially-slow linker could link, that it soured Wirth
> on separate compilation. ...

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.