3 ms·
> This assumes there is a one-to-one correspondence between C constructs and machine code No it does not. > which isn't true. Actually, it is true in a vast
by mpweiher 3y ago
> This assumes there is a one-to-one correspondence between C constructs and machine code
No it does not.
> which isn't true.
Actually, it is true in a vast majority of cases.
> C isn't a "portable assembler"
Not sure why people keep repeating this despite it being so obviously and patently untrue:
"Committee did not want to force programmers into writing portably, to preclude the use of C as a “high-level assembler:”
https://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n897.pdf https://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n897.pdf
p10, line 39
"C code can be portable. "
line 30