From: muta...@gmail.com   
      
   On Sunday, July 18, 2021 at 9:30:47 AM UTC+10, Joe Monk wrote:   
   > > At the end of the day, the compiler needs to produce something.   
   > > If it isn't machine code that manipulates registers,   
      
   > The Burroughs machine architecture doesnt fit in the C hypothetical   
   > machine. It doesnt have registers. It has a stack architecture.   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_machine   
      
   > All Burroughs compilers are one-pass, from source directly to   
   > executable object. No link step required. No P-code.   
      
   "In stack machine code (sometimes called p-code)"   
      
   > Burroughs was written as an ALGOL computer.   
      
   ALGOL is for humans, not computers. Almost all computers   
   are binary. Not ASCII text. I don't see how it would be possible   
   to prevent another programming language from being made   
   available. Another compiler is an indistinguishable executable.   
   Hmmm, maybe it is possible. You could make the Algol   
   compiler privileged, and it is the only thing allowed to mark a   
   file as executable. So compilers in other languages are forced   
   to generate Algol source code.   
      
   > It has unique features, like the fact that memory is not allocated   
   > until referenced. So, if you have an array, memory is not allocated   
   > to the array until usage. This is why calls such as malloc() wont   
   > work on Burroughs.   
      
   If it's not allocated until referenced, you can just define a   
   2 GiB array in the C runtime library and malloc() suballocates   
   from that.   
      
   That's what I did for Linux when I was surprised to find that   
   they expected me to rearrange my life with something called   
   "brk/sbrk" if I wanted to obtain memory. I made the buffer   
   big enough for gcc to recompile itself.   
      
   BFN. Paul.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)