|Re: A lesson for compiler warning writers xjam@cork.CS.Berkeley.EDU (1992-06-18)|
|Re: separate compilation (was: A lesson for compiler warning writers) email@example.com (1992-06-19)|
|Re: separate compilation (was: A lesson for compiler warning writers) firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-06-22)|
|From:||email@example.com (Bill Sommerfeld)|
|Date:||Fri, 19 Jun 1992 17:48:31 GMT|
xjam@cork.CS.Berkeley.EDU (The Crossjammer) writes:
... it is quite easy to enforce [separate compilation] consistency if you
have a notion of an interface database (as John suggested). I don't
remember how industrial strength it was, but CLU had exactly such a notion
and the compiler would vigorously complain if interfaces in different
modules did not match.
The CLU compiler I used while a student at MIT only maintained the
"interface database" for the lifetime of the compiler process. (The
compiler was an interactive program.. you fire it up, then typed in a
bunch of "compile x.clu", "compile y.clu", "compile z.clu" commands).
This broke down pretty badly if you tried to automate recompiles using
make, as it "forgot" all the cross-module state and assumed that
references to externals were all type-correct (much like C).
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.