Re: Why do we still assemble?

> It is perhaps worthy of note that implementors do not have this option
> in the case of C++. So-called `asm directives' are a part of the current
> draft C++ standard. Implementors *must* provide them.


Yes, but what does the (draft) standard say about the semantics? Could we
perhaps have an asm in C++ for the Cray that accepts VAX assembler?
(causing exceptions at run time :-)


Such things are inherently unportable, even between different compilers on
the same machine. Thus it makes more sense to have a general directive
for non portable things (ie, ANSI C's pragma), rather than trying to
create different directives for different nonportable constructs.
--
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu
--

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