Index
> Main > Portable Assembler?Goto page 1, 2 Next |
| Author |
|
|
vid 13 Jul 2006, 04:29
what should it be good for?
|
|||
13 Jul 2006, 04:29 |
|
|
quasar 13 Jul 2006, 05:57
It's simpler to use C
|
|||
|
13 Jul 2006, 05:57 |
|
|
TmX 13 Jul 2006, 07:37
Maybe you should take a look on an "assembler-like" language called
Linoleum Here's the site : http://www.anywherebb.com |
|||
|
13 Jul 2006, 07:37 |
|
|
mattst88 13 Jul 2006, 11:20
shaolin007 wrote: Computers are the same, right? Ha. Hahaha. |
|||
|
13 Jul 2006, 11:20 |
|
|
Remy Vincent 13 Jul 2006, 14:12
shaolin007 wrote: Think of it like the universal translator on Star Trek but in a written form. What do you think? http://www.geocities.com/remyvincent/RVEduExamples-INDEX.HTM At this page, there are THREE LINKS (=3) with assembler programs translated "by hand" : - http://www.geocities.com/remyvincent/RVEduExamples-forFasm.zip - http://www.geocities.com/remyvincent/RVEduExamples-forNasm.zip - http://www.geocities.com/remyvincent/RVEduExamples-forTasm.zip I SWEAR all this code is translated by hand, so if you heard about automatic ASM translators, I could check my translated code... THANKS... |
|||
|
13 Jul 2006, 14:12 |
|
|
shaolin007 13 Jul 2006, 19:31
vid wrote: what should it be good for? What? Well, I guess it could be good for allowing you to program in the langauge of your choice and some portability. I would imagine. |
|||
|
13 Jul 2006, 19:31 |
|
|
shaolin007 13 Jul 2006, 19:36
mattst88 wrote:
I fail to see the humor. From a computer science perspective, computers are the same in what they can do and any computer given enough time and memory will be able to do the same things that other computers can do. |
|||
|
13 Jul 2006, 19:36 |
|
|
shaolin007 13 Jul 2006, 19:42
Remy Vincent wrote:
Real funny. I am serious. Have you done any emulation programming or are you talking out of your ass? |
|||
|
13 Jul 2006, 19:42 |
|
|
mattst88 14 Jul 2006, 02:42
shaolin007 wrote:
A portable assembly language already exists. It's called C. Seriously, take a peek at how programming differs from x86 to ARM. Computers are not all the same. |
|||
|
14 Jul 2006, 02:42 |
|
|
shaolin007 14 Jul 2006, 03:35
mattst88 wrote:
Really, well I guess all of those computer science books I have read, written by people with PHD's, are totally wrong. Thanks, I never would of thought different if it wasn't for your enlightening response. C is not assembly by the way. What gave you that idea? Maybe because some compilers support it inline? |
|||
|
14 Jul 2006, 03:35 |
|
|
vid 14 Jul 2006, 06:28
computer books written by PHDs are too "off" most of time, people who write them are almost theoretists who live outside reality, their theories looks nice, true and compact, but only until you have to implement them, then you notice that this particular things needs to beheave little different in some case, well, it's not that big deal, we can make an exception.... and this will happen again and again until you have something different than the original theory was.
i would rather read some book from someone who has been actively programming 4 types of processors, than from someone with PHD whose biggest source had 10KB. for example, in ARM processors you can access memory addressed by immediate only in range 4096 bytes from instruction, other times you need to use indirect addressing. so forget about things like "mov [variable], 123". In ARM you can do things with one instruction that need 3-4 instructions on x86. Resulting code would be unreadable and maybe worse than C's |
|||
|
14 Jul 2006, 06:28 |
|
|
f0dder 14 Jul 2006, 09:25
The idea seems silly to me.
Either code for some generic virtual machine which can be compiled or JITed, or do the sane thing and code it in C. No reason to lose speed by emulation, or limit yourself to the lowest common denominator that all your target CPUs support. _________________  - carpe noctem |
|||
|
14 Jul 2006, 09:25 |
|
|
Crukko 14 Jul 2006, 10:07
Boyz: everyone is free to image and write some source....sometimes strange ideas become fantastic project and programs.....
shaolin007: write your own code...I hope you'll have great result, more than C or other languages....  |
|||
|
14 Jul 2006, 10:07 |
|
|
RedGhost 20 Jul 2006, 00:29
shaolin007 wrote: Think of it like the universal translator on Star Trek but in a written form. What do you think? i think the star trek reference makes this thread worth while, should i mention when my cellphone opens it makes the tricorder sound  _________________ redghost.ca |
|||
|
20 Jul 2006, 00:29 |
|
|
kohlrak 23 Jul 2006, 16:14
shaolin007 wrote:
He's right... If it was doable it would have been done. Yes, they all run on memory and input devices, but once again you must consider that most processors have different commands and different bus sizes and such. You, shaolin007, are thinking of a standardization... Which can only be implimented 2 ways... Building processors with all the same instructions (will never happen to begin with, plus it won't do any good for the old processors) or "another level of indirection" which is done by programming for an OS or an extention to another program (which would run on all OSes of all processors) which will be much slower (reminds me of java). Essentually, it's not gonna happen. |
|||
|
23 Jul 2006, 16:14 |
|
|
rugxulo 26 Jul 2006, 05:19
Quote: If it was doable it would have been done. Guess we'll never put a man on Mars. Or cure cancer. Or anything else. (Why is it so easy to give up hope?) If you have a goal, don't listen to everybody's opinion, just try hard (and good luck)! The only surefire way to fail is to not try. I remember a certain intelligent programmer for the Atari Jag64 saying that it would be years and years before home PCs could emulate the Jag. It wasn't too much longer afterwards that several emulators existed (and I am sure that it wasn't easy!). They used to think that running the mile in less than four minutes would make your lungs explode (or something silly like that). Then some guy did it. Poof, proved you all wrong, ha!
Oh, and don't tell me that you weren't amazed when you first found out about (choose one: MAME, Linux, Bochs, FreeDOS, NASM, FASM, Menuet, Firefox, Doom, Descent, GP32, Wikipedia, GCC, Juno, NetZero, VIM, GNU Emacs, The Broth/Mosaic, Geocities, OpenWatcom, Gmail, OpenOffice, etc.). Not exactly small feats, those! 
Don't forget that we drive around in motorized carriages and ride on flying engines in the sky! <EDIT> 200th post, woot! </EDIT> |
|||
|
26 Jul 2006, 05:19 |
|
|
DennisCGc 29 Jul 2006, 23:53
shaolin007 wrote:
No, but... C is pretty low-level. Seriously, have you ever done something in C? Anyway, I think when the design is complete, it'll be somehow an HLL... But, good luck |
|||
|
29 Jul 2006, 23:53 |
|
|
vid 08 Sep 2006, 07:02
this project idea turned to discussion - i am moving it to Main section
|
|||
|
08 Sep 2006, 07:02 |
|
|
RedGhost 08 Sep 2006, 09:19
Just because ARM and x86 differ in RISC and CISC doesn't mean they are totally different, I think ARM asm can be very similar to x86.
Making a portable assembler seems a bit weird considering the opcodes and syntax of each processor and how it does things with addressing or memory can vary greatly. I am with them go for C or PASCAL, and if you want a "portable asm" use JAVA and it's bytecode  _________________ redghost.ca |
|||
|
08 Sep 2006, 09:19 |
|
| Goto page 1, 2 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|