News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Testing GCC by wolf550e on Monday February 13, 2017 @05:19PM (#13639321)
Re:Testing GCC by dmalcolm on Monday February 13, 2017 @08:15PM (#13640413)
[author of the article]

The RTL dump format does look a lot like Lisp, FWIW; see: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/RTL.html or this article I wrote a while back on it: http://developerblog.redhat.com/2014/09/16/improving-gccs-in...

(This aspect of GCC is probably the oldest, written by RMS back in the late 1980s, I believe).

Re:Testing GCC by pekk on Monday February 13, 2017 @11:52PM (#13641236)
Middlebrow dismissal? Memory management is a common concern across languages, and languages which do not include garbage collection tend to host a variety of approaches depending on the author and what sort of thing they were building. Writing C code that uses garbage collection does not equal Common Lisp.
Re:Testing GCC by wolf550e on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @12:33AM (#13641410)
Not meant as a dismissal at all. I just noted that the phenomenon in which big complex C programs evolve into using features of higher level languages (like garbage collection instead of the regular malloc+free approach) is well known. Games are famous for using frame-bound arenas.

GCC wanted to run on anything that had enough RAM, so it's written in C (and now I think C++). I think a language with garbage collection and ML style pattern matching would be nicer for writing a compiler, and I don't think porting the GC runtime to every platform is that much work, but Microsoft didn't rewrite their compilers in F# and Oracle didn't rewrite the Java compilers in Scala, so maybe I'm missing something.

Re:Testing GCC by kazagistar on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @03:05AM (#13642035)
First, it's easier often to opt in to higher level functionality when useful then to opt out of high level language features. As for why no one ported compilers yet... that's a ton of work, even if they wanted to, for no benefit.