XPost: alt.folklore.computers   
   From: tnp@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 06/01/2026 23:10, Waldek Hebisch wrote:   
   > No, if you looked at what compilers in gcc are doing you   
   > will see that there are no intemediate C file.  There   
   > is intermediate assembler, but between source file and   
   > assembler each compiler work independently   
   >   
   I assumed so, but its nice to have it confirmed...   
      
   > AFAIK you can remove C compiler binary and other compilers in   
   > gcc will still work.   
   >   
   That is news to me, but it makes sense.   
      
   >> So, I'll basically   
   >>    stick with my 'translator' def. And if 'C' does not   
   >>    'natively support' something you can FAKE it with code,   
   >>    not really anything you CAN'T do with 'C'.   
   > A I wrote, you can use "via C" translators, but results are   
   > not so good as with dedicated compilers, that is why gcc   
   > contains separate compilers.   
   >   
   >>    By 'compiler' I mean "source in -> (agitating sounds) ->   
   >>    binary executable out.   
   > By that definition gcc does_not_  contain a C compiler:   
   > gcc generates assembly and then assembler and linker produce   
   > final executable.  Things are more complicated when you use   
   > LTO, because "linker" in this case actially is doing large part   
   > of compiler work and optimized code before producing final   
   > executable.  But non-LTO compilation works via assembly.   
      
   And thank heavens it does. Sometimes examining the assembler is   
   necessary, though thankfully fairly rarely these days.   
      
      
      
   --   
   "Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and   
   higher education positively fortifies it."   
      
       - Stephen Vizinczey   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)