Thanks Patrick; I am not being defensive, but ... On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 16:16 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 13:38 -0400, William Case wrote: > > Hi; > > > > I am working my way through the compiling process. I want to be precise > > about my question so that responders do not waste time on answering the > > wrong question. > > > > Where can I find/see which preprocessor, lexical analysiser, parser etc. > > the gcc compliler is using in Fedora? What order are they being used in > > and any other instructions or agruments that are being passed to them by > > gcc (the compiler) besides the original/modified code? > > Bill, you seem to have some misconceptions. Although lexical analysis > and parsing are inevitably involved in compilation, it doesn't mean they > are visible as separate processes. In fact the 'gcc' manual says > "Compilation can involve up to four stages: preprocessing, compilation > proper, assembly and linking, always in that order." Note that it > doesn't mention lexing and parsing, since these are subsumed under > "compilation proper". > Although not explained that way in Wikipedia, for example, I had come to understand that. It is more a problem of lack of vocabulary at to ask a question properly at this stage when one is relatively new to a subject, than it is a lack of understanding. > > I have gone through 'info gcc' but that does not seem to lead to the > > answer of my specific question. I have read as much as I could > > regarding 'make'. That didn't seem to have an answer either. Maybe I > > missed it! > > 'Make' just calls other programs according to a recipe, some of the > rules for which are built-in. It has nothing specific to do with the > actual mechanics of compiling. > Yes. Simply based on an outside hope that some of the make commands might be revealing. > > I know the answers, from reading patches and pieces (cpp, lex and Yacc > > -- I think). > > 'cpp' is the preprocessor, which handles things like #defines and > #includes. However 'lex' and 'yacc' are *not* the lexical analysis and > parsing phases (in the GNU universe the equivalents are actually 'flex' > and 'bison'). They are tools used some time in the past when the > compiler itself was being written to *generate* a lexical analyzer and > parser. In fact I don't remember offhand if gcc even uses them but I > suspect not (some features of C and C++ syntax make it tricky to handle > with yacc, though it can be done). Even if it does, you won't see them > being invoked when compiling a program. > An example of how far someone without the technical language sometimes has to reach in order to explain what they want to know. > > But seeing is believing. Somewhere (which I can't seem to > > find) there must be a declaration, or official text or manual that says > > for sure that I have a certain version of gcc that definetly calls on > > these specific programs. > > "gcc -v prog.c" will show you what's happening in excruciating detail. > I am up to working it through in excruciating detail. > Looking at the source code for 'gcc' is an illuminating experience. Note > that it's a very large complex program but patience is rewarded. That is how I got here; trying to look at kernel code in excruciating detail. That led me to review some of what I had taught myself about C; which led me to look at how some code is dealt with when compiled. I was getting concerned if I kept pushing back far enough I would have to study genetics to figure out how I got here to ask the damn stupid question in the first place. As well, Markku Kolkka in another post has suggested some sites that look promising. I'll break for a bit; clear my mind and then start reading. -- Regards Bill; Fedora 9, Gnome 2.22.3 Evo.2.22.3.1, Emacs 22.2.1 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
