In article <4avvi.3295$i85.2527@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
JohnQ <johnqREMOVETHISprogrammer@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Greg Comeau" <comeau@panix.com> wrote in message
news:f9lroo$rek$1@panix1.panix.com...

In article <TvUui.1424$3x.23@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
JohnQ <johnqREMOVETHISprogrammer@yahoo.com> wrote:

I've heard "translation phases" in here before, but I don't remember
or know if they actually put names on all of them. As in: translation
phase 1, preprocessing.

The closest it really comes to is mentioning preprocessing. The rest
is really dealing with the semantics of things, revolving names not
linking per se, syntax analysis but not how to scan or lex per se
(I'm not saying that right, but hopefully the point comes though),
and so on. This way, it leaves translation open to other options beyond
traditional "compiling".

So there is no list of translation phases then (right?). I have the draft
standard, is the high level view of the phases discussed somewhere that
you
know of and can point me to? If it's scattered all over the document
without
overview though, that disuades me from diving into it. (I think you are
saying that it is scattered).

If I feel "ambitious" I'll open the pdf and skim through it looking for
relevant passages.

See section 2.1

Tell me this though, if you know: are the phases purposely not defined to
give implementations more leeway? As in, "anything can happen between
ingesting the source code and putting out the resulting obj file".

The phases are defined, just not the way you think :)

Otherwise, yes,
that's part of what "leaves translation open" involves.

In article <T%uvi.3292$i85.2324@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
JohnQ <johnqREMOVETHISprogrammer@yahoo.com> wrote:

"James Kanze" <james.kanze@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186830699.922439.132020@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 10, 9:32 am, "JohnQ" <johnqREMOVETHISprogram...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

"Greg Comeau" <com...@panix.com> wrote in message

news:f9gamn$ajd$1@panix2.panix.com...

In article <l2wui.27099$RX.3...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
JohnQ <johnqREMOVETHISprogram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Alf P. Steinbach" <al...@start.no> wrote in message
news:13bl1u7o9n9eia9@corp.supernews.com...
...

You're saying that it's "compiling" rather than just
"translating"..

Yes. If you don't have the Dragon book, get it.

I don't need it. I'm not building a compiler.

Ok, but you asked about some of this stuff, and the "Dragon Book"
is normally considered a solid reference on some of this stuff.

I knew someone was going to say that. And I already knew what
I was going to say in return: I'd rather know what the C++
standard has to say about those things. I've heard
"translation phases" in here before, but I don't remember or
know if they actually put names on all of them. As in:
translation phase 1, preprocessing.

"The standard doesn't really speak of "compiling" formally. It
specifies how a C++ is translated to an executable file, then
executed. The translation has a certain number of steps;
classically, some of those have been considered "compiling",
where as the last has been considered "linking". But modern
systems tend to blur the distinction, and most systems today
also use a single command line for the works. Thus, for
example, g++ is not what would have been called a compiler when
I was learning computer science; it's a driver program which
invokes different phases of the compiler and/or the linker,
depending on command line options, etc."

"Depending on the context today, "compiling" can mean what you do
to go from one or more .cc files to an executable binary, or
what you do to go from a single .cc file to a single .o/.obj
file, with linking being a separate step (and I can't think of a
good, simple verb for "building a library"). Note that with
g++, I use the commands g++ and cl (under Windows) for both
compiling and linking, and with Sun CC, I use the command CC for
building a library as well (although I use ar with g++, and lib
with cl)."

See, now that's what I think of as "compiling" also: the traditional use
of
the term.

I'm surprised about this whole thread then! :)

So, would you consider going from source code to an intermediate
form, doing semantic analysis and such along the way, compiling? (The
intermediate form being symbol tables and such).

I prefer to think of things as a "compiler system" with a
"compiler proper" as one part.

JohnQ wrote:

See, now that's what I think of as "compiling" also: the traditional use
of the term. So, would you consider going from source code to an
intermediate form, doing semantic analysis and such along the way,
compiling? (The intermediate form being symbol tables and such).

I'm not sure I understand that.

"(The intermediate form being symbol tables and such)."

What makes you think that the intermediate form would include symbol
tables? For what reason? And what does "and such" include?

I always thought that the intermediate form would be code of some kind.

In the case of Comeau's compiler, C code.

Not to say that a symbol table wouldn't be useful for, say, a cross
reference tool or something, but I don't see why it would be included in
the intermediate form.

But perhaps I'm wrong. What do you think the intermediate form is?