Search Results

Search found 535 results on 22 pages for 'compilers'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 1/22 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How many CISC instructions do compilers use?

    - by Euphoric
    CISC processors have sometimes huge instruction sets. This makes assembly programming somehow easier. But it reduces overall effectivness of the whole chip. But how many of those instructions are used by modern compilers? I'm especialy interested in relation of CISC vs. RISC where in CISC, compiler can use specialised instructions, that might increase effectivness. But do compilers use those instructions? If yes, then how many of them are used?

    Read the article

  • Are VB.NET to C# converters actually compilers?

    - by Rowan Freeman
    Whenever I see programs or scripts that convert between high-level programming languages they are always labelled as converters. "VB.NET to C# converter" on Google results in expected, useful hits. However "VB.NET to C# compiler" on Google results in things like comparisons between the C# and VB.NET compilers and other hits that are not quite what you'd be looking for. Webopedia defines Compiler as A program that translates source code into object code Eric Lipper in an answer to: "How do I create my own programming language and a compiler for it" suggests: One of the best ways to get started writing a compiler is by writing a high-level-language-to-high-level-language compiler. Is a converter really just a compiler? What separates the two?

    Read the article

  • Are Intel compilers really better than Microsoft ones?

    - by Rocket Surgeon
    Years ago I was surprised when discovered that Intel sells Studio compatible compilers. I tried it in particular for C/C++ as well as fantastic diagnostic tools. But the code was simply not that computationally intensive to notice the difference. The only impression was: did Intel really did it for me just now, Wow, amazing tools with nanoseconds resolution, unbeleivable. But the trial ended and team never seriously considered a purchase. From your experience, if license cost does not matter, which vendor is a winner ? It is not broad or vague question or attemt to spark a holy war. This sort of question about 2 very visible tools. Nobody likes when tools have any mysteries or surprises. And choices between best and best are always the pain. I also understand the "grass greener" argument. I want to hear all "what ifs" stories. What if Intel just locally optimizes it for the chip stepping of the month, and not every hardware target will actually work as well as Microsoft compiled ? What if AMD hardware is the target and everything will slow down for no reason ? Or on other hand, what if Intel's hardware has so many unnoticable opportunities, that Microsoft compiler writers are too slow to adopt and never implement in the compiler ? What if both are the same exactly, actually a single codebase just wrapped into 2 different boxes and licensed to both vendors by some 3rd party shop? And so on. But someone knows some answers.

    Read the article

  • What's a good starting point to learn about JIT compilers?

    - by davidk01
    I've spent the past few months learning about stack based virtual machines, parsers, compilers, and some elementary things about hardware architecture. I've also written a few parsers and compilers for C like languages to understand the generic parser/compiler pipeline. Now I'd like to take my understanding further by learning about optimizing compilers and JIT compilers but I'm having a hard time finding material at the right level. I don't yet understand enough to dive into a code base like PyPy or LuaJIT but I also know more than what most introductory compiler books have to offer. So what are some good books for an intermediate beginner like to me to look into?

    Read the article

  • What are modern and old compilers written in?

    - by ulum
    As a compiler, other than an interpreter, only needs to translate the input and not run it the performance of itself should be not that problematic as with an interpreter. Therefore, you wouldn't write an interpreter in, let's say Ruby or PHP because it would be far too slow. However, what about compilers? If you would write a compiler in a scripting language maybe even featuring rapid development you could possibly cut the source code and initial development time by halv, at least I think so. To be sure: With scripting language I mean interpreted languages having typical features that make programming faster, easier and more enjoyable for the programmer, usually at least. Examples: PHP, Ruby, Python, maybe JavaScript though that may be an odd choice for a compiler What are compilers normally written in? As I suppose you will respond with something low-level like C, C++ or even Assembler, why? Are there compilers written in scripting languages? What are the (dis)advantages of using low or high level programming languages for compiler writing?

    Read the article

  • Linux compilers for C/C++ on AMD "Bulldozer" CPUs like the Interlagos [closed]

    - by jstarek
    I am looking for a Linux compiler for C/C++ code that supports AMDs new "Bulldozer" architecture and produces efficient binaries for the Interlagos series Opterons. This seems to be a bit difficult because of the peculiarities of the Bulldozer microarchitecture. While AMD has a whitepaper with some details, I would like to see some independent analyses. The relevant paper from HeCToR focuses mostly on job placement and scheduling, which is an area we already investigate. So, who can recommend a good compiler comparison for Bulldozers running Linux? Does anyone have well-described benchmarks?

    Read the article

  • Is it true that first versions of C compilers ran for dozens of minutes and required swapping floppy disks between stages?

    - by sharptooth
    Inspired by this question. I heard that some very very early versions of C compilers for personal computers (I guess it's around 1980) resided on two or three floppy disks and so in order to compile a program one had to first insert the disk with "first pass", run the "first pass", then change to the disk with "second pass", run that, then do the same for the "third pass". Each pass ran for dozens of minutes so the developer lost lots of time in case of even a typo. How realistic is that claim? What were actual figures and details?

    Read the article

  • Why are compilers so stupid?

    - by martinus
    I always wonder why compilers can't figure out simple things that are obvious to the human eye. They do lots of simple optimizations, but never something even a little bit complex. For example, this code takes about 6 seconds on my computer to print the value zero (using java 1.6): int x = 0; for (int i = 0; i < 100 * 1000 * 1000 * 1000; ++i) { x += x + x + x + x + x; } System.out.println(x); It is totally obvious that x is never changed so no matter how often you add 0 to itself it stays zero. So the compiler could in theory replace this with System.out.println(0). Or even better, this takes 23 seconds: public int slow() { String s = "x"; for (int i = 0; i < 100000; ++i) { s += "x"; } return 10; } First the compiler could notice that I am actually creating a string s of 100000 "x" so it could automatically use s StringBuilder instead, or even better directly replace it with the resulting string as it is always the same. Second, It does not recognize that I do not actually use the string at all, so the whole loop could be discarded! Why, after so much manpower is going into fast compilers, are they still so relatively dumb? EDIT: Of course these are stupid examples that should never be used anywhere. But whenever I have to rewrite a beautiful and very readable code into something unreadable so that the compiler is happy and produces fast code, I wonder why compilers or some other automated tool can't do this work for me.

    Read the article

  • Are Intel compilers really better than the Microsoft ones?

    - by Rocket Surgeon
    Years ago, I was surprised when I discovered that Intel sells Visual Studio compatible compilers. I tried it in particular for C/C++ as well as fantastic diagnostic tools. But the code was simply not that computationally intensive to notice the difference. The only impression was: did Intel really do it for me just now, wow, amazing tools with nanoseconds resolution, unbelievable. But the trial ended and the team never seriously considered a purchase. From your experience, if license cost does not matter, which vendor is the winner? It is not a broad or vague question or attemt to spark a holy war. This sort of question is about two very visible tools. Nobody likes when tools have any mysteries or surprises. And choices between best and best are always the pain. I also understand the grass is always greener argument. I want to hear all "what ifs" stories. What if Intel just locally optimizes it for the chip stepping of the month, and not every hardware target will actually work as well as Microsoft compiled? What if AMD hardware is the target and everything will slow down for no reason? Or on the other hand, what if Intel's hardware has so many unnoticable opportunities, that Microsoft compiler writers are too slow to adopt and never implement it in the compiler? What if both are the same exactly, actually a single codebase just wrapped into two different boxes and licensed to both vendors by some third-party shop? And so on. But someone knows some answers.

    Read the article

  • domain specific languages and compilers

    - by hyperboreean
    I was looking over Martin Fowler's recent book contents - Domain Specific Languages and I noticed some ANTLR example - that got me thinking that writing compilers will become more and more popular since people needs in this matter will increase. So, will the compiler theory still be as arid (being subjective here) as it was until now or are there any chances that we'll get more applied, programmer oriented materials ?

    Read the article

  • Advantages of compilers for functional languages over compilers for imperative languages

    - by Onorio Catenacci
    As a follow up to this question What are the advantages of built-in immutability of F# over C#?--am I correct in assuming that the F# compiler can make certain optimizations knowing that it's dealing with largely immutable code? I mean even if a developer writes "Functional C#" the compiler wouldn't know all of the immutability that the developer had tried to code in so that it couldn't make the same optimizations, right? In general would the compiler of a functional language be able to make optimizations that would not be possible with an imperative language--even one written with as much immutability as possible?

    Read the article

  • Question about compilers and how they work

    - by Marin Doric
    This is the C code that frees memory of a singly linked list. It is compiled with Visual C++ 2008 and code works as it should be. /* Program done, so free allocated memory */ current = head; struct film * temp; temp = current; while (current != NULL) { temp = current->next; free(current); current = temp; } But I also encountered ( even in a books ) same code written like this: /* Program done, so free allocated memory */ current = head; while (current != NULL) { free(current); current = current->next; } If I compile that code with my VC++ 2008, program crashes because I am first freeing current and then assigning current-next to current. But obviously if I compile this code with some other complier ( for example, compiler that book author used ) program will work. So question is, why does this code compiled with specific compiler work? Is it because that compiler put instructions in binary file that remember address of current-next although I freed current and my VC++ doesn't. I just want to understand how compilers work.

    Read the article

  • How were the first compilers made?

    - by Sauron
    I always wonder this, and perhaps I need a good history lesson on programming languages. But....since most compilers nowadays are made in C......how were the very first compilers made (AKA before C) or were all the languages just interpreted. With that being said, I still don't understand how even the first assembly language was done, I understand what assembly language is......but I don't see how they got the VERY first assembly language working (like.....how did they make the first commands (like mov R21) or w/e set to the binary equivalent.

    Read the article

  • How to write a very basic compiler [closed]

    - by Ali
    Possible Duplicate: Best Online resources to learn about Compilers? What would be the best way to learn about compilers, and executable formats? Advanced compilers like gcc compile codes into machine readable files according to the language in which the code has been written (e.g. C, C++, etc). In fact, they interpret the meaning of each codes according to library and functions of the corresponding languages. Correct me if I'm wrong. I wish to better understand compilers by writing a very basic compiler (probably in C) to compile a static file (e.g. Hello World in a text file). I tried some tutorials and books, but all of them are for practical cases. They deal with compiling dynamic codes with meanings connected with the corresponding language. How can I write a basic compiler to convert a static text into a machine readable file? The next step will be introducing variables into the compiler; imagine that we want to write a compiler which compile only some functions of a language. Introducing practical tutorials and resources is highly appreciated :-)

    Read the article

  • What is the state of C99 support in major compilers / toolchains?

    - by pkh
    A response to a comment I made here made me stop and think: "I don't really know what the state of C99 support is." Wikipedia gives details for a few compilers, but I'm not familiar enough with C99 to know all the bits and pieces of the standard, so I'm looking for a gestalt overview answer to the question: What is the state of C99 support in major compilers / toolchains?

    Read the article

  • Does a prose to code compiler exist?

    - by Raynos
    I have seen some horrible code in my time including people virtually duplicating the code in comments // add 4 to x x+=4; // for each i in 0 to 9 for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { // multiply x by i x *= i; } Taking this concept further, I'm curious whether prose to code compilers exist. Is there a valid use case for English prose to code? Do compilers exist that do this? The distinction between this and auto generated code, is that auto generated code is generally always a subset of a project. Can we have complete projects auto generated from english prose? I realise that this might overlap with the concept of declarative languages.

    Read the article

  • Is comparing an OO compiler to a SQL compiler/optimizer valid?

    - by Brad
    I'm now doing a lot of SQL development at my new job where as before I was doing Object Oriented desktop app stuff. I keep running across very large scripts (thousands of lines) and wanting to refactor in some way. I am seeing that SQL is a different sort of beast and it's probably fine to have these big scripts for the most part but while explaining this to me people are also insisting that the whole idea of refactoring is bad. That stuff like the .NET compiler are actually burdened by refactored code and that a big wall of code is more efficient and better design than code designed for reuse, readability and scalability. The other argument is that OO compilers are almost dangerously inefficient and don't have efficient memory management or runs too many CPU instructions compared to older "simpler" compilers and compared to SQL. Are these valid complaints? Even if some compiler like a C compiler is modestly more "efficient" (whatever that means on this high of a level without seeing code) would you want to write applications in C over C# or Java? Is comparing an OO compiler to a SQL compiler/optimizer even valid?

    Read the article

  • C++ compilers and back/front ends

    - by aaa
    Hello. for my own education I am curious what compilers use which C++ front-end and backend. Can you enlighten me where the following technologies are used and what hallmarks/advantages they have if any? Open64 - is it backend, front-end, or both? Which compilers use it? I encounter it in cuda compiler. EDG - as far as I can tell this is a backend use by Intel compilers and Comeau. do other compilers use it? I found quite a few references to it in boost source code. ANTLR - this is general parser. Do any common compilers use it? Regarding compilers: with front-end/backend does gcc compiler suite uses? does it have common heritage with any other compiler? what front-end/backend PGI and PathScale compilers use? what front-end/backend XL compiler uses (IBM offering). Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Compiler Dependencies [closed]

    - by asghar ashgari
    I'm a newbie researcher who's passion is programming languages (Web era). I'm wondering why all the Web frameworks and Web-based general purposes languages, have a huge number of dependencies when you want to install and then use (e.g., extend, alternate, etc.) their compilers. For example, Ruby on Rails or Scala. If I want to download their source code, and try to build it again, to me at least, feels like a can of worms. I have a MAC, so I need to install MACports, then update my XCode, then get the compiler source code that has bunch of other dependencies, then its hard to set things up; just to see the installed open-source compiler works fine.

    Read the article

  • Why isn't there a python compiler to native machine code?

    - by user2986898
    As I understand, the cause of the speed difference between compiled languages and python is, that the first compiles code all way to the native machine's code, whereas python compiles to python bytecode, to be interpreted by the PVM. I see that this way python codes can be used on multiple operation system (at least in most cases), however I do not understand, why is not there an additional (and optional) compiler for python, which compiles the same way as traditional compilers. This would leave to the programmer to chose, which is more important to them; multiplatform executability or performance on native machine. In general; why are not there any languages which could be behave both as compiled and interpreted?

    Read the article

  • Why is not there a python compiler to native machine's code?

    - by user2986898
    As I understand, the cause of the speed difference between compiled languages and python is, that the first compiles code all way to the native machine's code, whereas python compiles to python bytecode, to be interpreted by the PVM. I see that this way python codes can be used on multiple operation system (at least in most cases), however I do not understand, why is not there an additional (and optional) compiler for python, which compiles the same way as traditional compilers. This would leave to the programmer to chose, which is more important to them; multiplatform executability or performance on native machine. In general; why are not there any languages which could be behave both as compiled and interpreted?

    Read the article

  • Installing Cygwin C and C++ compilers for NetBeans IDE 7.2

    - by user1294663
    I am very new to Cygwin, C, C++ and NetBeans IDE 7.2. My PC is running MICROSOFT WINDOWS 7 OS. I have read the documentation on how to install the Cygwin C C++ compilers. http://netbeans.org/community/releases/72/cpp-setup-instructions.html#compilers I have tried to run Cygwin setup.exe that has the most recent version of the Cygwin DLL is 1.7.16-1. I am not very sure which exact package to install when the Cygwin setup.exe installer prompted for the selection of packages to download and install. I want to install the Cygwin C and C++ compilers so that i can create C and C++ projects using NetBeans 7.2 I selected those packages that has contains the following names gcc, g++, gdb and make. Then i proceed on to install the selected packages The installation took up a long time so i stopped after about 45 minutes or so. I browsed the installation folder and i saw some packages i selected were installed. I noticed that some packages came in some sort of "zip" file with tar.gz extension. i added the folder path into the PATH variable in the windows 7 environment variables window. I think this command works C: cygcheck -c cygwin but the rest doesn't work i think. C: gcc --version C: g++ --version C: make --version C: gdb --version I tried to create the C C++ project using the Netbeans IDE 7.2 and the IDE pops out a dialog message saying that there was no c c++ compilers found. Have i made some mistake here? like installing the wrong packages or something else??? Are there packages shown in the Cygwin setup.exe installer that contains exact names and exact version that is compatible with NetBeans IDE 7.2?? This i am not too sure. Because i i think i didn't really see some required packages with exact names and versions. My question is : Which exact packages do i install using the Cygwin setup.exe installer so that i can create C & C++ projects using Netbeans IDE 7.2? and what other steps do i have to take note to ensure complete successful installation? do i have to wait all the selected required packages to be installed? I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE EXACT NAMES AND THE VERSIONS FOR THE REQUIRED PACKAGES (NAMES AND VERSIONS DISPLAYED IN THE CYGWIN SETUP.EXE INSTALLER WHEN PROMPTED) NEEEDED FOR C & C++ PROGRAMMING USING NETBEANS IDE 7.2??

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >