-=> 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
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
|
