From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

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


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

In article <ZN-dnY--SfIc4MD0nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>,
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

On 1/6/26 07:16, Waldek Hebisch wrote:

In alt.folklore.computers c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
<snip>

Hmm ... look at all the GNU 'compilers' -
FORTRAN, COBOL, Ada, 'D', M2, Rust,C++,
G++, even Algol-68. None are 'compilers'
per-se, but to-'C' TRANSLATORS. So, 'C',
pretty much All Are One And One Is All.

No. Compiler as first stage translate given language to a
common representation. This representatiton is different
than C. Ada and GNU Pascal have parametrized types, there
is nothing like that in C. C++ (and some other languages)
have exceptions, C do not have them. There are several
smaller things, for example Ada or Pascal modulo is different
that C/Fortran modulo. During optimization passes gcc
keeps such information, to allow better optimization and
error reporting.

There were/are compilers that work by translating to C. But
this has limitations: generated code typically is worse because
language specific information is lost in translation. Error
reporting is worse because translator is not doing as many
analyzes as gcc do. For those reasons compilers in gcc
generate common representation which contains sum of features
of all supported languages and not C.

You give it a file in whatever lang, it produces
a file in 'C' and compiles that.

No. That's not how it works. This is factually wrong.

- Dan C.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

On 1/6/26 14:24, c186282 wrote:

On 1/6/26 07:16, Waldek Hebisch wrote:

In alt.folklore.computers c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
<snip>

   Hmm ... look at all the GNU 'compilers' -
   FORTRAN, COBOL, Ada, 'D', M2, Rust,C++,
   G++, even Algol-68. None are 'compilers'
   per-se, but to-'C' TRANSLATORS. So, 'C',
   pretty much All Are One And One Is All.

No.  Compiler as first stage translate given language to a
common representation.  This representatiton is different
than C.  Ada and GNU Pascal have parametrized types, there
is nothing like that in C.  C++ (and some other languages)
have exceptions, C do not have them.  There are several
smaller things, for example Ada or Pascal modulo is different
that C/Fortran modulo.  During optimization passes gcc
keeps such information, to allow better optimization and
error reporting.

There were/are compilers that work by translating to C.  But
this has limitations: generated code typically is worse because
language specific information is lost in translation.  Error
reporting is worse because translator is not doing as many
analyzes as gcc do.  For those reasons compilers in gcc
generate common representation which contains sum of features
of all supported languages and not C.

  You give it a file in whatever lang, it produces
  a file in 'C' and compiles that. 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'.

  By 'compiler' I mean "source in -> (agitating sounds) ->
  binary executable out.

  I think there are still a few FORTRAN compilers out
  there for Linux, maybe COBOL too. There's at least
  one forth IDE/compiler. Digital Mars makes 'C' and
  'D' compilers. GCC is not the alpha and omega
  of software development.

   But it CAN be much more friendly and/or
   tuned to a particular area of interest
   or preferred programming style.

Iron Spring PL/I compiles directly to binary. It can produce assembler
output, but only as a by-product of generating the object file. I have occasionally thought of trying to make it another front-end for GCC. As
I understand it, GCC compiles to an intermediate language, not to C.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

In article <10jlqu8$mvh2$3@dont-email.me>,
Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:

On 1/6/26 14:24, c186282 wrote:

On 1/6/26 07:16, Waldek Hebisch wrote:

In alt.folklore.computers c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
<snip>

   Hmm ... look at all the GNU 'compilers' -
   FORTRAN, COBOL, Ada, 'D', M2, Rust,C++,
   G++, even Algol-68. None are 'compilers'
   per-se, but to-'C' TRANSLATORS. So, 'C',
   pretty much All Are One And One Is All.

No.  Compiler as first stage translate given language to a
common representation.  This representatiton is different
than C.  Ada and GNU Pascal have parametrized types, there
is nothing like that in C.  C++ (and some other languages)
have exceptions, C do not have them.  There are several
smaller things, for example Ada or Pascal modulo is different
that C/Fortran modulo.  During optimization passes gcc
keeps such information, to allow better optimization and
error reporting.

There were/are compilers that work by translating to C.  But
this has limitations: generated code typically is worse because
language specific information is lost in translation.  Error
reporting is worse because translator is not doing as many
analyzes as gcc do.  For those reasons compilers in gcc
generate common representation which contains sum of features
of all supported languages and not C.

  You give it a file in whatever lang, it produces
  a file in 'C' and compiles that. 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'.

  By 'compiler' I mean "source in -> (agitating sounds) ->
  binary executable out.

  I think there are still a few FORTRAN compilers out
  there for Linux, maybe COBOL too. There's at least
  one forth IDE/compiler. Digital Mars makes 'C' and
  'D' compilers. GCC is not the alpha and omega
  of software development.

   But it CAN be much more friendly and/or
   tuned to a particular area of interest
   or preferred programming style.

Iron Spring PL/I compiles directly to binary. It can produce assembler >output, but only as a by-product of generating the object file. I have >occasionally thought of trying to make it another front-end for GCC. As
I understand it, GCC compiles to an intermediate language, not to C.

GCC's frontends, like those of most modern compilers, generate
an intermediate representation (that is, indeed, not C). That,
in turn, is optimized and presented to a backend, that uses the
IR to generate machine code for a target instruction set. In
this way, any of the languages that the GCC front-end recognize
can be targetted to any of the architectures its backend
supports.

Whether that machine code is in binary object code or textual
assembly code hardly matters; the hard work of the compiler is
in the transation from source to machine code.

Separate assembly and link stages are hidden by the compiler
driver program (e.g., the `gcc` program itself), but don't
change the fact that, yes, Virginia, GCC is actually a compiler.

These bizarre definitional assertions about what makes something
a "compiler" or not seem to be mostly put forth by people who
have never heard of the concept of "separate compilation" or
"libraries", let alone touched the innards of a compiler. In
particular, this idea that everything must be implemented in a
single program or it's not a "true" compiler is rooted firmly in
ignorance.

- Dan C.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

On 1/7/26 08:13, Dan Cross wrote:

These bizarre definitional assertions about what makes something
a "compiler" or not seem to be mostly put forth by people who
have never heard of the concept of "separate compilation" or
"libraries", let alone touched the innards of a compiler. In
particular, this idea that everything must be implemented in a
single program or it's not a "true" compiler is rooted firmly in
ignorance.

I think compilers have generated intermediate code since the first
FORTRAN compiler. The only distinction is one vs. multiple programs. Wth
a variety of both front- and back-ends GCC has good reason to separate
them. On the other hand, a compiler that uses another compiled language
as intermediate code is a strange beast, probably better called a
translator.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

On 07/01/2026 15:13, Dan Cross wrote:

These bizarre definitional assertions about what makes something
a "compiler" or not seem to be mostly put forth by people who
have never heard of the concept of "separate compilation" or
"libraries", let alone touched the innards of a compiler. In
particular, this idea that everything must be implemented in a
single program or it's not a "true" compiler is rooted firmly in
ignorance.

<applause>
--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2