> To that end, the Plan 9 syntax is fine for teaching assembler. And
> so doing, a person is better able to write good C code. The only
> disadvantage is when learning the assembler one has to translate front
> the manufacturer's documentation and the Plan 9 standard syntax.
I think too much
> I think too much depends on the perception of a need to use assembly.
> If you start from the assumption that assembly can be relegated to
> pin-point optimisation on one hand and architecture-focused
> instructions on the other, that leaves a huge space in the middle
> where one can use a more
> Or just how some architectures use typed registers, and some use
> different-sized instruction variants.
which architeture uses typed registers? a quick check of 386, 68020,
alpha, arm, mips, power, power64, sparc, and amd64 shows all use
MOV[WLQ].
- erik
> I still quite like the distribution of work, for the reasons Aram just gave.
> Latterly, I've been making the things a little smaller and perhaps simpler,
> by continuing some changes that
> Russ made (eg, pgen.c pswt.c) to reduce the amount of almost identical code
> that's replicated across
(Totally unrelated to the original post, but hey, we've already
left that path, so why not?)
Speaking of the Plan 9 toolchain, I much prefer the way it works
internally compared to the Go toolchain because it is much easier
to re-target. I haven't ported the Plan 9 toolchain (only saw Charles
do
On 4 February 2016 at 12:24, Brantley Coile wrote:
> Which plan 9 assembler uses right to left argument assignments, or compare
> argument order
For example, the ARM's MCR and MRC instructions are unchanged from the
manufacturer's order.
Partly that's because the
Brantley Coile wrote:
> Which plan 9 assembler uses right to left argument assignments,
> or compare argument order?
The CMP order is different (at least) between power and arm64. This
inconsistency is impossible to fix; I know because I tried to fix
it in the SPARC64 Go
To add some more on my previous post, yes, there are inconsistencies,
but the common syntax still help tremendously, so much that
translating between power and arm64 assembly has been mostly achieved
through sam(1).
--
Aram Hăvărneanu
Anyone played with a Dragan?
On February 4, 2016 6:04:49 AM CST, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
>> Plan 9 assembly is nice because it looks mostly the
>> same, and the simple addressing modes are mostly consistent, but it's
>> far from being really consistent between architectures.
>
>Personally, I agree with the view that
Limbo is a contemporary of Java and it has several key features that Go and
Java are known for; e.g. CSP and VM. The difference is that the level of
awareness and experience of developers is higher now than it was then.
Sadly, Inferno and Limbo are still underrated today.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at
On 4 February 2016 at 15:22, erik quanstrom wrote:
> MOVQQU or MOVQQA still follow the expected pattern.
Originally on amd64 I consistently used O instead of sometimes DQ and
sometimes O as Intel did,
but in the end I changed them back to the Intel names, since it was
> *cough* that's what people said about Java *cough*
What, that Java does what it says on the tin? Which tin?
Lucio.
On February 4, 2016 10:09:49 AM CST, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
>> *cough* that's what people said about Java *cough*
>
>What, that Java does what it says on the tin? Which tin?
Almost forgot:
The AbstractBeanPartAluminumRecyclableTinFactory that makes
AbstractPartAluminumRecyclableTinLists,
On February 4, 2016 10:09:49 AM CST, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
>> *cough* that's what people said about Java *cough*
>
>What, that Java does what it says on the tin? Which tin?
>
cross-platform development tool
>Lucio.
--
Sent from my Nexus 5 with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
go without the packages will be as useful as java without class libraries.
nothing.
i'm happy they understood the table stakes for a new software/application
development language.
i can also see why they bundled all the compilation stages into one --
script kiddies don't do make files
On Thu, Feb
> > MOVQQU or MOVQQA still follow the expected pattern.
> >
>
> Originally on amd64 I consistently used O instead of sometimes DQ and
> sometimes O as Intel did, but in the end I changed them back to the
> Intel names, since it was hard to look them up, and there were so
> many.
ack. typo in
17 matches
Mail list logo