Re: Vector assignment semantics (was Re: latest trends in compiler optimization research?)

mojaveg@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com (Everett M. Greene)
Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:15:49 PST

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[4 earlier articles]
Re: Vector assignment semantics (was Re: latest trends in compiler opt al407@cam.ac.uk (Anton Lokhmotov) (2007-08-13)
Re: Vector assignment semantics (was Re: latest trends in compiler opt gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2007-08-15)
Re: Vector assignment semantics (was Re: latest trends in compiler opt Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com (Peter Flass) (2007-08-15)
Re: Vector assignment semantics (was Re: latest trends in compiler opt jwkenne@attglobal.net (John W. Kennedy) (2007-08-15)
Re: Vector assignment semantics (was Re: latest trends in compiler opt wyrmwif@tsoft.org (SM Ryan) (2007-08-16)
Re: Vector assignment semantics (was Re: latest trends in compiler opt bmoses-nospam@cits1.stanford.edu (Brooks Moses) (2007-08-15)
Re: Vector assignment semantics (was Re: latest trends in compiler opt mojaveg@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com (2007-08-17)
Re: Vector assignment semantics (was Re: latest trends in compiler opt gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2007-08-17)
Re: Vector assignment semantics (was Re: latest trends in compiler opt Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com (Peter Flass) (2007-08-17)
Re: Vector assignment semantics (was Re: latest trends in compiler opt jjw@cs.sfu.ca (James J. Weinkam) (2007-08-20)
Re: Vector assignment semantics (was Re: latest trends in compiler opt gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2007-08-20)
Re: Vector assignment semantics (was Re: latest trends in compiler opt jvorbrueggen@mediasec.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?=) (2007-08-21)
Re: Vector assignment semantics (was Re: latest trends in compiler opt tom@kednos.company (Tom Linden) (2007-08-26)
[2 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: mojaveg@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com (Everett M. Greene)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:15:49 PST
Organization: none that you'd notice
References: 07-08-01607-08-021 07-08-024 07-08-034 07-08-037 07-08-040 07-08-042
Keywords: PL/I
Posted-Date: 17 Aug 2007 13:05:45 EDT

> Until that new compiler, IBM pretty much entirely ignored ANSI PL/I,
> which is semantically very incompatible with IBM's original definition
> of the language.


I would like to see some indication of how IBM PL/I was "very
incompatible" with the ANSI version given that the ANSI spec was
derived from IBM's internal spec for the language.
[The ANSI standard is phenomenally hard to read because of all of the
formalisms. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the differences were
due to misunderstandings about what all the formal goop actually
meant. -John]


Post a followup to this message

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