On 10/30/2012 7:46 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 09:51:34AM +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote: >> On 2012-10-30 02:58, Brad Roberts wrote: > [...] >>> today: >>> compiler invokes tools and just passes on output >>> >>> ideal (_an_ ideal, don't nitpick): >>> compiler invokes tool which returns structured output and uses that >>> >>> intermediate that's likely easier to achieve: >>> compiler invokes script that invokes tool (passing args) and fixes >>> output to match structured output >> >> Even better, in my opinion: Both the linker and compiler is built >> as a library. The compiler just calls a function from the linker >> library, like any other function, to do the linking. The linker uses >> the appropriate exception handling mechanism as any other function >> would. No need for tools calling each other and parsing output data. > [...] > > +1. This is 2012, we have developed the concept of libraries, why are we > still trying to parse output between two tools (compiler & linker) that > are so closely intertwined? Not the mention the advantages of having the > compiler and linker as a library: reusability in IDEs, adaptability to > *runtime* compilation, and a host of other powerful usages. > > > T >
I'm all for idealistic views, but neither of those matches reality in any meaningful way. What I outlined is actually practical.