Personally I prefer dealing with a native pascal compiler
FPC compiles or used to compile to assembler for some things,... very fast.
Seems to me the "pggy back" method for using C as the base compiler will add delayus and debug symbol issues.
Might be a better idea to simply go the byte code route.
-----Original Message----- From: gpc-owner@gnu.de [mailto:gpc-owner@gnu.de] On Behalf Of Peter Gerwinski Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:52 PM To: GNU Pascal mailing list Subject: Re: How important is GPC for you?
Kevan Hashemi wrote:
Given a binary version of the compiler, we apply this binary to a new
version of the Pascal GPC source code, which produces a new C++
program
representing the compiler, which we compile again with GCC, to produce
a
new compiler binary. Is that how it would work?
Yes, but all this will be happening automatically behind the stage. The command line to compile a GPC program will remain as simple as "gpc hello.pas -o hello".
And I assume the advantage of C++ as the output is that you could, in
theory, use any C++ compiler to get the binary.
That's one potential advantage of C++. For a detailed discussion, see Frank's page http://fjf.gnu.de/gpc-future.html, section "GPC as a C++ Converter".
To what extent will you use C++ features particular to GCC?
IMHO it is best to adhere to ISO standard C++. But anyway, the backend is step 2.
Peter