Michael Van Canneyt
michael.vancanneyt at wisa.be
Tue Jun 29 03:50:45 EDT 1999
On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Sergio A. Kessler wrote:
> michael at tfdec1.fys.kuleuven.ac.be el día Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:02:19 +0200
> (MEST), escribió:
> >On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Sergio A. Kessler wrote:
> >> michael at tfdec1.fys.kuleuven.ac.be el día Sun, 27 Jun 1999 20:00:47 +0200
> >> (MEST), escribió:
> >> >
> >> >2) Cross-platform indenpendence.
> >> if one of the goals of FPC is this, why not use gcc as backend,
> >> instead of assembly ?
> >1) We want to be completely independent of C.
> you like more assembly than C ?
I dislike C more than assembly.
> >2) We're not writing 'p2c' here :)
> >Once we had a proposition from a commercial company to support a dialect of
> >their pascal compiler (development of which was being discontinued).
> >In the end they wanted a Pascal to C converter.
> >It was the end of our conversations :-)
> I think you are not understanding me..
Oh, I do, don't worry :)
> gcc support more platforms than FPC, rigth ?
> so instead of making assembly code, FPC could be integrated
> with gcc, using it like the backend compiler to generate
> code in _any_ platform that is supported by gcc
> (wich is /lots/ of platforms).
Then you have p2c. We don't want p2c !
GPC was made this way. We don't want it either :-)
You can discuss whatever you like, but it's a done deal: FPC
writes it's own assembler. It even has a binary writer.
If this means that we have less platforms, so be it. We'll
get there one day.
More information about the Lazarus