Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: else ladders practice Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 12:32:01 -0800 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 24 Message-ID: <8734jfm4vy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <3deb64c5b0ee344acd9fbaea1002baf7302c1e8f@i2pn2.org> <87wmgsmme0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87sergmhkc.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87bjy3mg71.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86ttbvqham.fsf@linuxsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 21:32:02 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b40b20f4d5912db9f2a914577ca2f33c"; logging-data="3146136"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19u77Et9b4aBgZpD0l2SBjI" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:M7UglNIawHYrLdPFidbsBcQms1E= sha1:rx19m6QRZChNo3w+0ER1nmZ7Dxo= Bytes: 2407 Tim Rentsch writes: > Bart writes: >> On 25/11/2024 16:27, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Bart, can you explain the difference between a C compiler and a C >>> implementation? Or do you believe they're the same thing? (Hint: >>> They're not.) >> >> Well, I write language implementations, and I consider them largely >> the same thing. >> >> So who's right? > > In comp.lang.c, the C standard is right. Agreed, but the C standard doesn't define the word "compiler", and uses it only in non-normative text (I searched N3096). What I consider to be a "compiler" is the program or programs that implement translation phases 1 through 7. (The 8th and final phase is linking.) -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */