Speaker 1: Welcome to the deep dive. Today, we're tackling something fundamental
Speaker 1: yet often unseen in the world of coding. The compiler.
Speaker 1: Think of it as the architect behind the scenes, taking
Speaker 1: your human readable instructions and blueprinting them into the precise
Speaker 1: machine language your computer understands precisely.
Speaker 2: And for this deep dive, we're not just talking about
Speaker 2: compilers conceptually. We're getting into the initial stages of building
Speaker 2: our own. Our mission is to really dissect the core
Speaker 2: transformations required to compile even the most well the simplest
Speaker 2: see programs.
Speaker 1: And to guide this architectural exploration, we'll be using excerpts
Speaker 1: from Writing a C Compiler as our foundational text. It's
Speaker 1: our guide as we uncover how source code undergoes its
Speaker 1: initial metamorphosis into executable form. Okay, let's unpack this, let's
Speaker 1: do it. Our compiler construction starts with establishing a modular
Speaker 1: pipeline of four key stages.
Speaker 2: That's right. Yeah, even for the simplest stuff like maybe
Speaker 2: not even Hello World, maybe just returning a number, will
Speaker 2: be setting up a four pass structure. The first of.
Speaker 1: These is the lex lexer or tokenizer.
Speaker 2: Right or tokenizer, Yeah, same thing.
Speaker 1: So the lexer's fundamental task is to scan our c
Speaker 1: code and break it down into its essential components, right
Speaker 1: like identifying the individual building blocks before you start assembling
Speaker 1: them exactly.
Speaker 2: These smallest meaningful units are the tokens. Think about curly braces,
Speaker 2: defining scope, the summit, colon, ending statements, see words like
Speaker 2: int right, int return, and then the identifiers you create
Speaker 2: for functions, variables. All of these are distinct tokens. The
Speaker 2: lexer read your code character by character and groups them intelligently.
Speaker 1: I see, so a basic line like into main return
Speaker 1: thirty two would be segmented into tokens int main return
Speaker 1: thirty two taxes.
Speaker 2: Enter exactly that sequence.
Speaker 1: Okay, what's the next step after this initial segmentation.
Speaker 2: Following tokenization gives the parser? It takes that linear sequence
Speaker 2: of tokens.
Speaker 1: Just a list basically just a list.
Speaker 2: And imposes a hierarchical structure. It constructs what's known as
Speaker 2: an abstract syntax tree or at an AST.
Speaker 1: Okay, so instead of just a flat list, we get
Speaker 1: a structured representation that shows how these tokens relate to
Speaker 1: each other.
Speaker 2: Precisely. Think of it as moving from say a list
Speaker 2: of ingredients to an actual recipe.
Speaker 1: Oh nice analogy.
Speaker 2: The AST is this tree like structure that embodies the
Speaker 2: grammatical rules of C and reveals the program's operational flow.
Speaker 2: It's a format that lets the compiler analyze and well
Speaker 2: understand the codes intent much better than just that stream of.
Speaker 1: Tokens, right, because just having a list of words doesn't
Speaker 1: tell you the sentence structure of the meaning exactly. So,
Speaker 1: for our example in Maine return thirty two, what would
Speaker 1: the AST look like in its simplest form.
Speaker 2: In a simplified view, the root might be a program node, okay.
Speaker 2: Descending from that, you'd have a function node for Maine.
Speaker 2: Inside the function there'd be a return node, and finally,
Speaker 2: connected to return, a constant node holding the value.
Speaker 1: There So it visually organizes the program's components and their relationships.
Speaker 1: Function contains a return statement which returns a.
Speaker 2: Constant exactly captures that structure.
Speaker 1: Interesting, Now the compiler has this structured tree. What happens
Speaker 1: next in the transformation.
Speaker 2: This is where the translation to a lower level language begins.
Speaker 2: The code generation pass takes the AST the tree we
Speaker 2: just spilled, yes, that tree, and translates it into assembly
Speaker 2: language instruction assembly.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's much closer to the hardware, right exactly.
Speaker 2: And it's important to understand at this stage the compiler
Speaker 2: isn't directly writing out like a human readable assembly text file.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, it's still manipulating data structures internally. It's creating
Speaker 2: an in memory representation of these assembly instructions.
Speaker 1: So the creation of the actual DOTS file comes later.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's the job of the fourth initial pass code emission, right.
Speaker 2: This pass takes the in memory assembly representation what just
Speaker 2: created and finally writes it out, serializes it into a file,
Speaker 2: usually with the dot extension.
Speaker 1: And that S file is what the assembler and linker
Speaker 1: use later on.
Speaker 2: That's the one they take that and produce your final
Speaker 2: executable program.
Speaker 1: It seems like a considerable number of steps for such
Speaker 1: a basic program, you know, return thirty two. Why not
Speaker 1: a more direct approach.
Speaker 2: That's a really fair question. Again, it might seem like
Speaker 2: overkill for these tiny examples, but establishing this multipass architecture
Speaker 2: right from the start gives us huge advantages later. By
Speaker 2: separating concerns lexical analysis here, syntax there, cogen over here,
Speaker 2: modularity exactly, modularity, we create a more maintainable system. Imagine
Speaker 2: trying to translate I don't know, a complex novel straight
Speaker 2: into another language without first understanding the grammar and structure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that would be a mess.
Speaker 2: It would be incredibly hard. This separation lets us handle
Speaker 2: more complexity later without having to rip everything up and
Speaker 2: start again. It's really about building a scalable foundation that.
Speaker 1: Makes a lot of sense planning for future complexity. Okay,
Speaker 1: speaking of assembly language, can we actually peek under the
Speaker 1: hood see what a real compiler like GCC generates for
Speaker 1: a simple C program.
Speaker 2: That's an excellent idea. It helps ground this discussion. For
Speaker 2: a simple program like in main return two saved us
Speaker 2: say return two dot C. You can use GCC with
Speaker 2: some specific commandline flags gccss and f and O. A
Speaker 2: secret is unwine tables FCF protection none, return two dot
Speaker 2: e t whoa.
Speaker 1: Okay, lots of flags there, but the key is mesh
Speaker 1: s ash.
Speaker 2: This is the main one telling it to stop after
Speaker 2: compilation and output assembly. The others just simplify the output
Speaker 2: a bit for our purposes.
Speaker 1: Got it, And what's the output look like?
Speaker 2: This command generates a file probably return two dots. With
Speaker 2: the assembly for that C program, you'll likely see something
Speaker 2: really simple like dot globalmine, dot main, dot movell two
Speaker 2: dollars percent ax red.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's definitely not c what's going on.
Speaker 2: Here, Let's break it down. The syntax is AT and
Speaker 2: T assembly syntax common on Linux and mac os. That
Speaker 2: first line dot global main that starts with a period, right,
Speaker 2: That means it's an assembler directive. It's an instruction for
Speaker 2: the assembler itself, not the CPU docl WI main just
Speaker 2: makes the main symbol visible outside this.
Speaker 1: File, a symbol like a label or a name for
Speaker 1: a place in memory.
Speaker 2: Precisely. Here, Maine is a symbol representing the starting address
Speaker 2: of our main function. The compiler doesn't know the final
Speaker 2: address yet. The linker figures that out later. Ah.
Speaker 1: The linker's job resolving symbols exactly.
Speaker 2: It resolves them assigns actual memory locations. If code refers
Speaker 2: to Maine, the linker patches in the real address. That's
Speaker 2: called relocation.
Speaker 1: So Maine on the next line is just marking the
Speaker 1: spot the start of the code exactly.
Speaker 2: It's the label. Then move two dollars percent ax. That's
Speaker 2: a real instruction.
Speaker 1: MOLL move long thirty two bit.
Speaker 2: Yep thirty two bit integer two dollars means the literal value.
Speaker 1: Too an immediate value, right, and percent.
Speaker 2: X is a register, a small fast storage spot inside
Speaker 2: the CPU. So this instruction puts the value too into
Speaker 2: the percent ax register.
Speaker 1: Okay, but y percent x specifically convention.
Speaker 2: In many standard ways, functions call each other calling conventions,
Speaker 2: the percent x register is designated to hold the function's
Speaker 2: return value.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, So because our C code returns two, we put.
Speaker 2: Two in percent acts so whoever called main can find
Speaker 2: the result.
Speaker 1: There makes sense. And the last line writ.
Speaker 2: Just means return tells the CPU to go back to
Speaker 2: where main was called from. So yeah, those four lines
Speaker 2: are the complete assembly for a tiny C program.
Speaker 1: That's surprisingly direct.
Speaker 2: Cool.
Speaker 1: So when we compile a C program, even with our
Speaker 1: own simple compiler, what's the typical sequence of operations overall?
Speaker 2: Right? So while our first compiler focuses mainly on that
Speaker 2: compilation to assembly.
Speaker 1: Step step two, in the usual process, Yeah, the standard.
Speaker 2: C process has a few phases. First, there's pre processing.
Speaker 1: Handling hashtag include and macros and stuff.
Speaker 2: Exactly Commands like GCCE do this. It often outputs a
Speaker 2: DITI file.
Speaker 1: Then comes compilation proper our focus generating the didass assembly
Speaker 1: file correct?
Speaker 2: Then in a full setup you have assembly and linking
Speaker 2: usually just GCC assembly file. Oh, output file.
Speaker 1: Takes the dot S file, makes machine code, links libraries.
Speaker 2: And gives you the final executable. Right. Our initial compiler
Speaker 2: will sort of stub out that last step, relying on
Speaker 2: the system's assembler and linker. Gotcha.
Speaker 1: And for our own compiler driver, the command line tool
Speaker 1: we're building, how should.
Speaker 2: That behave, good question. It should take the path to
Speaker 2: a C source file like your compiler paths to program
Speaker 2: dot C. If it works, success, it should create an
Speaker 2: executable in the same directory, same name, but no dot C.
Speaker 2: So pats a program and exit with code zero. And
Speaker 2: if it fails, non zero exit code and crucially no
Speaker 2: output files, no executable, clean failure.
Speaker 1: Clear rules. And I saw mentions of lex and parse
Speaker 1: options in the notes.
Speaker 2: Uh yeah, those are mostly for testing and debugging. Our
Speaker 2: compiler lexmis just run the lexer.
Speaker 1: And stop check tokenizing, right, and.
Speaker 2: Parse runs the lexer and parser builds the AST then stops.
Speaker 2: Neither should create any output files, they just check those
Speaker 2: stages internally.
Speaker 1: Okay, that makes sense for development. All right, we've got
Speaker 1: a solid high light picture. The four passes the standard
Speaker 1: GCC flow. Let's dive deeper into the lexer and pulser.
Speaker 1: Now they're the first big hurdle in building our own
Speaker 1: right absolutely.
Speaker 2: Chapter two of the guide digs into building these starting
Speaker 2: with the lexer. As we said, its job is finding tokens,
Speaker 2: and one simplifying assumption we make early on is that
Speaker 2: our c files only use ASKI characters.
Speaker 1: Just standard ask you for now sensible starting point. How
Speaker 1: do we actually test if our lexer is doing the
Speaker 1: right thing.
Speaker 2: The guide provides a test compiler tool, which is super helpful.
Speaker 2: It comes with test programs. In test chapter two, you'll
Speaker 2: find directories like invalid.
Speaker 1: Lex programs that should fail the lexer.
Speaker 2: Exactly, bad tokens, weird characters, and then invalid parts and
Speaker 2: valid directories. For later stages. You test the lexer specifically
Speaker 2: using dot test compiler path toward compiler chapter two stage lex.
Speaker 1: Okay, So that command runs our compiler inlex only mode
Speaker 1: against those test cases and checks if it accepts or
Speaker 1: rejects them correctly.
Speaker 2: That's the idea. It verifies the pass feel behavior. It
Speaker 2: doesn't necessarily check the exact stream of tokens for the
Speaker 2: valid files.
Speaker 1: Though, ah so for that level of detail, we'd need
Speaker 1: our own unit tests.
Speaker 2: Precisely, you'd write tests to feed it valid code and
Speaker 2: assert that the token list matches exactly what you expect,
Speaker 2: and feed it invalid code to check the error messages.
Speaker 1: Got it? Any key implementation tips for the lexer itself, Yes.
Speaker 2: A couple of important ones. First, when you see something
Speaker 2: that looks like an identifier, a sequence of letters, numbers,
Speaker 2: underscores like maine or my variable right your logic. Maybe
Speaker 2: your rejects will probably also match keywords like int or return.
Speaker 2: The efficient way is first recognize it as a generic identifier.
Speaker 2: Then check if that identifier happens to be on the
Speaker 2: list of reserved keywords.
Speaker 1: Ah, don't try to make the initial pattern, distinguish them, identify, then.
Speaker 2: Classify exactly two steps. The other thing is, don't rely
Speaker 2: only on white space to split tokens. Oh right, think
Speaker 2: about main. That's three tokens main and no white space
Speaker 2: separating them. If you just split on spaces, you'd get
Speaker 2: it wrong.
Speaker 1: Point Okay, So the lexer spins out tokens. Then the
Speaker 1: parser steps in to build the ast exactly.
Speaker 2: The parser takes that flat stream and gives it structure
Speaker 2: hierarchy based on the C grammar. The AST is the
Speaker 2: data structure holding that hierarchy.
Speaker 1: We saw the simple AST for return thirty two. What
Speaker 1: about something slightly more complex, like an if statement. How
Speaker 1: does the hierarchy show up there?
Speaker 2: Okay, good example. Let's say you have if ab return
Speaker 2: two plus two. Right, the top AST node might be
Speaker 2: an if node. This if node would have say, two
Speaker 2: main children, one for the condition.
Speaker 1: Ab, which itself might be structured.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, that condition could be a binary op node
Speaker 2: for with this own children for the variable A and
Speaker 2: the variable b.
Speaker 1: Okay, and the other child of the if.
Speaker 2: That would be the then block return two plus two.
Speaker 2: That could be a return node, and its child would
Speaker 2: be another binary op node for the plus with two
Speaker 2: constant children both holding to wow.
Speaker 1: Okay, So the tree really mirrors the nesting and the
Speaker 1: logic if conditioned then and the condition the then part
Speaker 1: have their own little subtrees.
Speaker 2: Decisely, it captures that structure directly, which is what the
Speaker 2: next stages need now. To define these AST structures formally
Speaker 2: and importantly in a language neutral way, the guide introduces
Speaker 2: something called ASDL.
Speaker 1: Asdl zephyr abstract syntax description language.
Speaker 2: That's the one. It's just a formal way to write
Speaker 2: down what our AST nodes look like.
Speaker 1: Okay, So what does the ASDL look like for our
Speaker 1: super simple C subset in chapter two?
Speaker 2: It's pretty minimal. It's like program program function definition, function definition, function,
Speaker 2: identify your name, statement, body, return next, sovisp.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's decode that a program is just a program
Speaker 1: node containing one function definition. Yep, A function definition is
Speaker 1: a function node. It has a name, which is an
Speaker 1: identifier type, and a body which is a statement type.
Speaker 2: Right, and those words name and body are just field
Speaker 2: names helpful labels.
Speaker 1: Gotcha. Then a statement can only be a return node
Speaker 1: containing an x expression for now, yes, and an x
Speaker 1: can only be a constant node holding an int.
Speaker 2: That's it for chapter two. Identifier and int are like
Speaker 2: built in ASDL types.
Speaker 1: So when we implement this, say in Python or Rust
Speaker 1: or drava, will create classes or data types that match
Speaker 1: this ASDL structure exactly.
Speaker 2: Functional languages might use algebraic data types. OP languages might
Speaker 2: use abstract classes and inheritance. The guide mentioned some idioms
Speaker 2: and points to more reading if you want to go
Speaker 2: deeper into implementation strategies.
Speaker 1: Okay, but the ASDL defines the structure, but it doesn't
Speaker 1: tell the parser which tokens in what order make up
Speaker 1: say a function definition. Right, it doesn't mention the ind
Speaker 1: keyword or the parentheses or braces.
Speaker 2: That is a crucial distinction. You're absolutely right. The AST
Speaker 2: is abstract. It leaves out the syntactic sugar like semicolons embraces.
Speaker 2: The parser needs a concrete map of the token sequences.
Speaker 1: Which is where the formal grammar comes.
Speaker 2: In, exactly, using a notation called backus nair form or
Speaker 2: BNF BNF.
Speaker 1: Okay, what's the BNF for this simplecy it mirrors.
Speaker 2: The ASDL pretty closely. The program function I identify return
Speaker 2: expeed a statement return expediment, and then it clarifies the
Speaker 2: terminals identifier an identify your token and in a constant.
Speaker 1: Token then okay, So things in angle brackets like this
Speaker 1: are non terminals. They correspond to our AST node types.
Speaker 2: Yes, grammatical categories.
Speaker 1: And things in quotes like this are terminals. The actual
Speaker 1: tokens the lexer gives.
Speaker 2: Us exactly the literal tokens we expect to see. The
Speaker 2: bn F spells out the exact sequence and int token.
Speaker 2: Then an identifier token then art rcedo a statement right,
Speaker 2: and the.
Speaker 1: Question mark definitions are just clarifying what kind of token
Speaker 1: identifier and in refer to. So the BNF is the
Speaker 1: parser's rulebook for matching token sequences to build the AST
Speaker 1: nodes defined by the asdo.
Speaker 2: You've got it perfect summary. The guide also shows how
Speaker 2: you'd extend bn F like adding an if statement rules
Speaker 2: ifpanis statement l statement the brackets mean the l's part
Speaker 2: is optional neat Okay.
Speaker 1: So we have tokens, the ASDL defining the target AST
Speaker 1: and the BNF grammar as a rule book. How does
Speaker 1: the parser actually do the parsing? What's the technique?
Speaker 2: The guide introduces a common technique called recursive descent parsing.
Speaker 1: Recursive dissent sounds intriguing.
Speaker 2: The basic idea is simple, For each non terminal symbol
Speaker 2: in the BNF grammar, like program function statement, you write
Speaker 2: a corresponding parsing function.
Speaker 1: Okay, a function for each rule.
Speaker 2: Pretty much, and these functions often call each other, mirroring
Speaker 2: the structure of the grammar. That's the recursive part.
Speaker 1: Ah okay, So how would parse statement work based on
Speaker 1: our simple grammar?
Speaker 2: Well, the rule is statement return x biller. So the
Speaker 2: par statement function would first look for a return token. Okay,
Speaker 2: if it finds one, it consumes it. Then it needs
Speaker 2: to parson x, so it would call another function, maybe parsex.
Speaker 1: Which would handle parsing the integer constant in our.
Speaker 2: Case, right parsiicus would return the constant ast node, then parsated,
Speaker 2: but looks for the final token, consumes that, consumes that,
Speaker 2: and if everything worked, it bundles up the constant node
Speaker 2: returned by parsis inside a new return ast node and
Speaker 2: returns that got it.
Speaker 1: The guide showed some pseudocode with an expect helper function.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Expect is useful. It basically means check if the
Speaker 2: next token is x, consume it if yes, raise an
Speaker 2: error if no.
Speaker 1: And these functions consume tokens as they go, So if
Speaker 1: parse program finishes and there are still tokens left over.
Speaker 2: That usually means there's extra stuff that doesn't fit the grammar.
Speaker 2: A syntax error makes sense.
Speaker 1: The guide mentioned predictive parsers and backtracking briefly too.
Speaker 2: Yeah. For more complex grammars where a rule might have
Speaker 2: multiple options like if versus return for statement, the parser
Speaker 2: might need to peek ahead at the next token to
Speaker 2: decide which path to take predictive or try one path
Speaker 2: and backtrack if it fails.
Speaker 1: But for our simple start, direct recursive descent works well.
Speaker 2: And testing the parser same tool.
Speaker 1: YEP test compiler path where you're compiler chapter two stage pars.
Speaker 1: It checks against the invalid pars and valid tests again.
Speaker 1: Writing your own tests to check the structure of the
Speaker 1: output AST is super helpful for debugging and the implementation
Speaker 1: tips where write a pretty printer for the ASD definitely
Speaker 1: helps visualize the tree and give good error messages.
Speaker 2: Crucial expected but found return online five column ten is
Speaker 2: way better than just syntax error.
Speaker 1: Absolutely okay. So source DAN lexer, the DAN pokins, the
Speaker 1: met parser, DAN cast. We have the tree. What's next?
Speaker 2: Now we hit cogeneration. This pass takes that c language AST.
Speaker 1: The one the parser is built.
Speaker 2: Exactly and transforms it into our target by sixty four
Speaker 2: assembly instructions, but again not as text yet. We represent
Speaker 2: the assembly program as another internal data.
Speaker 1: Structure first another AST, an assembly AST precisely.
Speaker 2: The guide calls it that. To keep things clear, it
Speaker 2: has its own ASDL definition two.
Speaker 1: Okay, what does the assembly ASDL look like?
Speaker 2: It's also quite simple for now. Program function definition function
Speaker 2: identify our name, instruction instructions instructions op src, opern and
Speaker 2: dst ret oper im in register.
Speaker 1: Okay, interesting parallels. Program has a function definition. A function
Speaker 1: has a name, but instead of a C statement body,
Speaker 1: it has instruction a list of instructions.
Speaker 2: The astrisk means a list or sequence.
Speaker 1: And the instruction types are mauve or reht and their
Speaker 1: operations can be immediate, a constant or a register.
Speaker 2: That's it for now, and initially, the only register we
Speaker 2: care about is percent ax for the return value. The
Speaker 2: code generator walks the cast and for each node it
Speaker 2: figures out the equivalent assembly instructions and builds up this
Speaker 2: assembly AST.
Speaker 1: The guide had a table mapping cast nodes to assembly
Speaker 1: AST constructs like return in C becomes a mauv register
Speaker 1: than are ret in assembling.
Speaker 2: Right, and constant int in the cast becomes in in
Speaker 2: the assembly AST.
Speaker 1: So it's a translation step building a new tree that
Speaker 1: represents the assembly code needed exactly.
Speaker 2: And you can see how one C statement return maps
Speaker 2: to two assembly instructions movel and ret. That becomes more
Speaker 2: common as things get complex.
Speaker 1: Okay, assembly AST constructed in memory. The final step of
Speaker 1: the initial four passes code emission.
Speaker 2: Take that assembly AST we just built and write it
Speaker 2: out to the s text file.
Speaker 1: Finally the text file.
Speaker 2: Finally the text file. And since the assembly AST structure
Speaker 2: closely matches actual assembly syntax, this cast is usually quite straightforward.
Speaker 2: You just traverse the assembly AST and put the text
Speaker 2: for each node.
Speaker 1: Another table in the guide showed the formatting function name
Speaker 1: instructions becomes dot global name, then name than the text
Speaker 1: for each instruction each On.
Speaker 2: The new line, Yeah, mov A sarvisctst becomes move, srcdst,
Speaker 2: rep becomes REHT, register becomes percent x, mint becomes NT.
Speaker 1: Just translating the assembly AST nodes into their standard text representation.
Speaker 2: Pretty much a direct translation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and remembering that mac OS needs the underscore prefix
Speaker 1: on the global name like Maine.
Speaker 2: Right, that platform detail needs to be handled by the emitter.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then to test the whole thing lexer parser
Speaker 1: codegen code emitter, we run test compiler without the stage flags.
Speaker 2: Exactly test compiler path toward your compiler. Chapter two. That
Speaker 2: command will one run your compiler on the test c
Speaker 2: files to generate S files. Two use the system's GCC.
Speaker 2: We're Clang to assemble and link those STS files into executables. Three.
Speaker 2: Run those executables. Four compare their exit codes to the
Speaker 2: exit codes produced by compiling the original C files directly
Speaker 2: with GCC.
Speaker 1: So it verifies the end to end behavior. Does our
Speaker 1: compiler produce assembly that results in a program doing the
Speaker 1: same thing at least in terms of exit code as GCC.
Speaker 2: That's the goal for this stage. It's the final check
Speaker 2: that all four passes are working together correctly for these
Speaker 2: simple programs.
Speaker 1: Wow. Okay, so in this deep dive, we've really laid
Speaker 1: out the blueprint for a compiler's first steps. Yeah, lexingcode
Speaker 1: into tokens, parsing tokens into that crucial abstracts and text tree,
Speaker 1: generating an intermediate assembly representation from that tree, and finally
Speaker 1: emitting that assembly into a text file. It's fascinating to
Speaker 1: see how these stages transform the code step by step.
Speaker 2: Absolutely and like we said, while it seems like a
Speaker 2: for just returning a number, this structured multi pass approach
Speaker 2: is really the key. It's the foundation we need to
Speaker 2: start handling more complex sea features like operators, variables, control
Speaker 2: flow in our next deep dives.
Speaker 1: It definitely gives you a much deeper appreciation for what's
Speaker 1: happening when you just type gccmiprogram dot c okay. Thinking
Speaker 1: about these basic steps, how do they scale, How does
Speaker 1: this foundation handle the sheer complexity of say, the Linux
Speaker 1: kernel source code, and what are the really tricky sea
Speaker 1: features that will challenge this simple pipeline later on. Definitely
Speaker 1: something to chew on.
Speaker 2: Indeed, plenty more complexity ahead.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us for this deep dive