From: eyal DOT ben-david AT aks DOT com
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <4225652A.003E5828.00@aks.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:27:15 +0200
Subject: Re: Why not build in inline 80x86 assembly, like in borland C
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk





On 10/8/97 11:58:29 AM Eli Zaretskii  wrote:

>On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> But surely the compiler can "compile" the Intel asm to AT&T format, the
same
>> way it compiles the C++ source to AT&T code?
>
>How can you expect a C or C++ compiler to be able to compile assembly,
>which is an entirely different language?  Would you expect it to be able
>to compile a Pascal program, for example?  It just can't, it only
>understands a single source language.
>
He probably meant that gcc will be used as a driver program
for a  *.asm  to  *.s translator (it is a driver for many different
compilers anyway)

Imagine a command like
     gcc  file.asm -S -o file.s
or
     gcc file.asm -c -o file.o

in the first case only the translator will be invoked.
in the second case the translator and then gas will be invoked.

I think it is possible

Eyal