(Fwd) Re: Interesting decompiler

On 15 Dec 2006 at 19:18, Chris M wrote: Those mnemonics aren't used by the compiler in many cases--they're for the compiler writers and maintainers (and curious users who'd like to take a peek). While I suppose looking at a binary dump of the object code might reveal something, it's the hard way to answer the question "Am I really generating the right code?" There are many compilers that will generate code that can be assembled by the same assembler that the programmers use, but if you have a single target, why parse ASCII text if you don't have to? It just slows the compilation process down. On the other hand, if you're writing a compiler to generate native code on multiple platforms, then using the standard assembler makes some sense. Saves you from having to know about object file layout and such. Every compiler needs some sort of assembly pass, if for nothing more than to satisfy forward references. Because the code being generated is fairly restricted as to form, a pass-and-a-half assembly phase is often more than enough. As to mnemonics, it's interesting that even in P-code implementations, the instruction mnemonics are often one of the first things specified in the design process. After all, you have to have some way to talk about the instructions you're making up. If it's native code you're compiling to, well, those are already made up for you. Cheers, Chuck