ovek at arcticnet.no
Tue Jun 29 05:02:47 EDT 1999
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> > >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 :)
No I think you don't.
> > 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 !
You don't get p2c.
gcc's backend compiler compiles RTL, not C.
gcc's frontend converts C to RTL.
gpc's frontend converts Pascal to RTL. How come you mention how gpc was
done without being aware of how things are designed?
I had the impression that the reason you didn't use gpc was because it
didn't have enough Borlandisms, not because of any compiler bigotry.
Was I wrong?
More information about the Lazarus