Subj : C is the most efficient p
To   : Dr. What
From : Boraxman
Date : Fri Dec 31 2021 10:22:00

-=> Dr. What wrote to Nightfox <=-

 DW> @MSGID: <61CDB562.2970.dove-program@dmine.net>
 DW> @REPLY: <61CC93F1.3342.dove_dove-prg@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
 -=> Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-

 Ni> I see what you mean about assembler.  But I'd think you could also
 Ni> argue that each processor's assembler is its own language, even though
 Ni> there is no standard for assembler.

 DW> There sort of is.  Back in the 80's they had macro assemblers.

 DW> Think of these as in between something like C and assembler.  It looked
 DW> like assembly language, but it was "generic" (to a point).  The
 DW> compiler (that's what it was) would convert your generic assembler into
 DW> the specific assembly code for your procssor.

 DW> So, in theory, you could write one set of code for a family of
 DW> processors (Intel 80x or Z80) that could be compiled across all the
 DW> processors in the family.

 DW> I don't know if they had one that would let you write for something
 DW> like the Z80 and the 6502, though.

Was HLA (High Level Assembly) one of those?  I did look into it, but I always
preferred to be explicit about the instructions I used.  When I use assembler,
it is because I am targetting an explicit instruction set and want to make the
decisions about which instructions to use myself.  The one time I thought a
"generic" solution would be useful is when I want assembler that runs on both
32bit and 64bit Intel natively.

Otherwise, I just use C as my generic assembler, with intrinsics where need be.

.... Overtly resist change
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
 þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

.