OK, put that in English. What is the -S option? My guess that since M is written in C, that it is what happens to M when it is compiled before it becomes machine language ??
On Monday 18 July 2005 12:04 am, Gregory Woodhouse wrote: > If you really want to see (no pun intended) what I compiler does with > your C code, try the "-S" option. No doubt, what an M to C translator > would do to most M code is similar. (Actually, the question of > whether or not it is possible to automatically generate well > structured code is an interesting, and difficult, problem): > > > #include <stdio.h> > > int main() > { > int i,j; > for (i = 1; i <= 100000; i++) > j = i; > printf("Hello!\n"); > } > ~:$ cat test.s > .section __TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions > .section > __TEXT,__picsymbolstub1,symbol_stubs,pure_instructions,32 > .machine ppc > .cstring > .align 2 > LC0: > .ascii "Hello!\12\0" > .text > .align 2 > .globl _main > _main: > mflr r0 > stmw r30,-8(r1) > stw r0,8(r1) > stwu r1,-96(r1) > mr r30,r1 > bcl 20,31,"L00000000001$pb" > "L00000000001$pb": > mflr r31 > li r0,1 > stw r0,60(r30) > b L2 > L3: > lwz r0,60(r30) > stw r0,56(r30) > lwz r2,60(r30) > addi r0,r2,1 > stw r0,60(r30) > L2: > lwz r0,60(r30) > lis r2,0x1 > ori r2,r2,34464 > cmpw cr7,r0,r2 > ble cr7,L3 > addis r2,r31,ha16(LC0-"L00000000001$pb") > la r3,lo16(LC0-"L00000000001$pb")(r2) > bl L_printf$LDBLStub$stub > lwz r1,0(r1) > lwz r0,8(r1) > mtlr r0 > lmw r30,-8(r1) > blr > .section > __TEXT,__picsymbolstub1,symbol_stubs,pure_instructions,32 > .align 5 > L_printf$LDBLStub$stub: > .indirect_symbol _printf$LDBLStub > mflr r0 > bcl 20,31,"L00000000001$spb" > "L00000000001$spb": > mflr r11 > addis r11,r11,ha16(L_printf$LDBLStub$lazy_ptr-"L00000000001 > $spb") > mtlr r0 > lwzu r12,lo16(L_printf$LDBLStub$lazy_ptr-"L00000000001$spb") > (r11) > mtctr r12 > bctr > .lazy_symbol_pointer > L_printf$LDBLStub$lazy_ptr: > .indirect_symbol _printf$LDBLStub > .long dyld_stub_binding_helper > .subsections_via_symbols > ~:$ > > === > Gregory Woodhouse > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "The policy of being too cautious is > the greatest risk of all." > --Jawaharlal Nehru > > On Jul 17, 2005, at 7:21 PM, Chris Richardson wrote: > > Why bother going from MUMPS to C? MUMPS is faster than most other > > database > > access methods. The major problem with code translators is that > > the code > > they usually generate is not very supportable and nearly impossible to > > modify. It would be far better to embark on a modernization > > program for the > > existing code that was written to the old architecture constraints > > that are > > no longer issues. This will buy us better modularity, > > interoperability, > > and better code reuse as well as increased execution speed and smaller > > symbol tables. Big job? Yes, but it also will have big payoffs. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies > from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, > informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to > speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Hardhats-members mailing list > Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members -- Nancy Anthracite ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members