Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.compilers    |    Compiler construction, theory, etc. (Mod    |    2,753 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 2,268 of 2,753    |
|    glen herrmannsfeldt to where our moderator    |
|    Re: Is multi-level function return possi    |
|    24 Mar 14 20:01:20    |
      From: gah@ugcs.caltech.edu              (snip on C compilers, where our moderator wrote)              > [We do forget that Ritchie's C compiler ran in 12K bytes of RAM,       > two passes plus assembler, and generated quite respectable code       > for the PDP-11. -John]              I wonder how that compares to the PL/I (F) compiler in 44K?              Not that you would want to run it in 44K, but rumors are that it       was designed to, and will do it.              At the end of every compilation, it tells the minimum region       that will allow it to keep the symbol table in memory.              -- glen              [The F meant it was supposed to run on a 64K machine, so 44K of       available core sounds about right. PL/I D squeezed a PL/I subset       into a 16K machine. -John]              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca