Talk:Cross compiler

message: I am removing the "Source to source translator" from the Uses of cross compilers section for these reason:
* It is inconsistent; It does not represent a use of a cross-compiler but a different definition of it that is unrelated to the article as a whole.
* It introduces ambiguities: it conflates different concepts into the term compiler.
* Source-to-Source translation was already addressed (with a redirection to an appropriate page) in the introduction.
--205.143.141.24 (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source-to-source translator 

message: The section on the Canadian Cross lack context and an explanation of why it is done this way. 
Jorge Peixoto 15:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Cross 

message: Aztec C and cross compilers were not necessarily common to some in the world of professional micro computer development back in the 1980's when I was cutting my first C code. Aztec C certainly was. Other developers like John Bridges who wrote PCPaint, the first Paintbrush Program on the IBM PC, used Aztec C for his first versions.
To me it never made sense to sit and develop programs on an slow old Apple II or Commodore 64 even if they were still in use by School and Home Markets. Like most developers, I didn't have much time to waste and using my IBM PC to write the programs in a cross compiler was by far the most productive use of my time, not to mention the most comfortable, since I always felt cramped on those "little boxes".   
The GNU stuff came later and so did developing for the ARM processor which by the way Microsoft also offer a cross development environment for amongst others, so I put the Aztec C section at the top. I was however somewhat sensitive to the reasons for cross compilation and stuck my bit about emulators and enthusiasts at the bottom of the list. It is still notable though and deserving of its own unique purpose. 
As far as the hyphen winning... it's optional. I didn't use it for this article but have used it professionally on and off in my own stuff for a lot longer than I would care to admit. As far as merging goes, I am against it with the rationale that cross compilers are special cases and do not deserve to be subclassed to some kind of a forced inheritance. It's analoguous to having two kingdoms in the world of compilers. 'Nuff Said. 
--Bill Buckels (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aztec C 

message: After adding the section about Aztec C I thought about-it for a bit and then decided I'd best tell the rest of the story. The GNU-ish stuff seemed a little too parochial for my liking, lacking of the substance that led us here, but I didn't necessarily want to promote M$oft despite the fact that I have used their C compilers for almost 25 years. I have developed extensively in Unix and not just Linux over that time as well. I have done HPUX, Solaris, Sun and have had my share of AIX (and Panes too) since coming off the mini's back in the mid-80's and focusing on micros. I wrote what I wrote from memory so at least I haven't lost my mind completely throughout.
Now what I really want to leave you with is a "higher bar" for the rest of this article. There is lots more to tell and this isn't a dictionary... it's an encyclopedia. Some of the articles on WikiPedia are pretty constrained, and much is missing that is relevant, so when I do one I consider it a privilege to provide as much content as possible. This one is still no different and needs work, but two major wacks have been added, and in my opinion the two most significant.
After I wrote the section about the "Little Engine That Could but later ran off the rails", I slept on it, then I picked on the "Cash Cow that sat on the track and derailed them". Hope you enjoyed it.
--Bill Buckels (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the same thing. There is a lot of valuable information there; more than what is at Visual C++#16-bit versions, which is where I just redirected Microsoft C to. Most of the early history information is not directly relevant to the topic of cross platform or cross architecture compilers though, except perhaps the parts on the barcode reader, the 16 vs 32 bit code generation, and the “Late 1990s” section. It does mention “cross language development” a lot, but that is different. So I am thinking the information could be split off to a Microsoft C, or even a more general Microsoft development tools (see the category) type article. Vadmium (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft C 

message: The "Microsoft C cross compilers"-section should be used to create the Microsoft C/C++-page (linked from Visual C++). Calling MSC a cross compilers dilutes the terminology.
--Bjornen 11:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the same thing. There is a lot of valuable information there; more than what is at Visual C++#16-bit versions, which is where I just redirected Microsoft C to. Most of the early history information is not directly relevant to the topic of cross platform or cross architecture compilers though, except perhaps the parts on the barcode reader, the 16 vs 32 bit code generation, and the “Late 1990s” section. It does mention “cross language development” a lot, but that is different. So I am thinking the information could be split off to a Microsoft C, or even a more general Microsoft development tools (see the category) type article. Vadmium (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate article 

message: The 1990's section mentions that 16 bit was supported until MSC 8.00c. MSC 8.00c still had 16 bit support, so perhaps this should read 16 bit was supported through (as opposed to until) MSC 8.00c.
Jeffareid (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MSC 8.00c 

message: I believe some mention should be made of how Plan 9 handles cross-architecture compiling. In short, there's a separate compiler targetting each architecture, which outputs object files named according to the target architecture. This makes cross compiling completely painless. The reference is http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/comp.html. 78.52.197.102 (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plan 9 C compilers 

message: :Moved from the article.  There are no reliable third party sources establishing the notability of this cross compiler. silly rabbit (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flaming Thunder 

message: Is it just me or does the .NET section make no sense. It just blabs on about how .net isn't a cross compiler in the true sense -- to use hyperbole, my refrigerator is not a cross compiler in the true sense, I wouldn't put things that are *not* cross compilers in the article. That section seems to detract from the article, in a sort of incoherent rambling manner... 121.44.93.244 (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dot net?? 

message: It is just you. 
The .NET section makes perfect sense. 
It needs improving but belongs here. It is included for continuity (I wrote it as part of my Microsoft Timeline) and perhaps in a separate part of this article Java and Ruby should be mentioned too and the Model View Controller, but this is a community article and you could as easily add these as I.
As far as "blabbing on", your unsigned hit-and-run comments are why Wikipedia should require a valid login. We don't know who you are so how do we know if we should take you seriously. When you say what you would or wouldn't do it means nothing.
You do in spite of your insect-like rant make one good point but your lack of respect combined with the fact that you do not sign your comments is less than inspiring so I am just not going to tell you what that point is. You will need to read the article again to figure that out:)
--Bill Buckels (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill, this article is about compilers that execute on one platform while generating an executable for another platform. Your whole section about Microsoft is very informative and well made, but it belongs in an article about Microsoft compilers (say Microsoft C as suggested by another contributor somewhere on this talk page). As far as I can tell, the sections you added talk about 'multiple-languages-at-once compilers', not 'cross-compilers'. Olivier Diotte (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dot You?? 

message: I edited the build/host/target triplet definition of the "GCC and cross compilation" section. According to the 2 references I linked, the previous definitions were wrong (and there was no reference, so I assume the information I found is right).  Olivier Diotte (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  build/host/target triplet definition 

message: we need more than a enumeration of compiler translating from one pl to another or even maschine code.
when you got the grammar (ex. ebnf) of a pl the structure can sometimes be transformed in the grammar of another pl.
then it's neccessary to transport the semantics  (ex. statements statement sequences expressens...).  maybe multiple passes are needed on the code of the program after parsing the source code.
79.234.208.36 (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  more [[semantics]] could be added - to the enumeration 

message: Fortunately the material on canadian cross compilation is informative. Unfortunately, the Microsoft C section is grossly misplaced. The Microsoft C compilers are native compilers. I'm not signing this only because this should be obvious.
70.181.197.149 (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft C section out of place 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cross compiler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/FAQ-4.html#sec:CanadianCross
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cross compiler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071215083657/http://www.itee.uq.edu.au:80/~csmweb/decompilation/hist-c-pc.html to http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~csmweb/decompilation/hist-c-pc.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cross compiler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080501141058/http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/dos.htm to http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/dos.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified