Index
> Projects and Ideas > Portable assembly code?(between archs)Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
| Author |
|
|
m 11 Jul 2007, 11:33
Okay!
I thought the Processors today are really-really Powerful !!! Looks like they have a long-long way to go! |
|||
11 Jul 2007, 11:33 |
|
|
sleepsleep 11 Jul 2007, 15:55
hll compiler embedded into processor, hmm .... why not just put java/.net framework into processor, and let users learn how to flash their processor once in a while
 
my prediction is, AI would get embedded into processor, but user still need to code in asm. parallel computing sounds nice, but it adds a burden "timing" layer. of course, 50 years in future wouldn't be same like now, currently, it seems like the architecture is moving towards multiple cores. maybe intel or amd will make their own board to come with intergrated processor, vga & sound with a basic OS (high level bios?) like vmware esx as a layer to access hardwares. or they probably split everything to separate entity, eg. encryption processor, maths processor, database processor, internet gateway processor and etc that written specifically to handle those situation. who know, maybe u wouldn't get windows in CD or DVD anymore, u need to buy a windows processor  and attach them on your board..... no more cheap pirate
or maybe processor that communicate through gigabit network card
so, you could put processor remotely and abundantly where each of it has a gigabit hole that just need lan cable to links. so each individual could have a sort of processors farm to deal with ever increasing software, games demand. eg. like buying a cooling box, put 24 gigabit conn processor, (the box allow u to switch on/off any processor in it) the jack the cable from box to router, then any pc that connect through router/switch would/could use the processors farm. just idea, but who knows. my prediction sometime quite accurate also !! |
|||
|
11 Jul 2007, 15:55 |
|
|
f0dder 11 Jul 2007, 23:34
sleepsleep wrote:
Not just moving, we're already here - even very cheap Pentium-D and AMD64 processors are dualcore now, quadcores are dropping in price, and octa-cores are on their way. sleepsleep wrote:
AMD bought VIA basically to integrate GPU with CPU, intel are working on massive-multicore CPUs, etc. UEFI might be thought of as "a basic OS", though (in my understanding) it's mainly intended as a boot/pre-boot environment. sleepsleep wrote:
VIA already has AES/Rijndael in hardware on their EPIA CPUs (overlaid on SSE hardware), "database processor" doesn't make much sense imho, and "internet gateway processor" is sorta already possible on advanced NICs (although imho it duplicates too much effort and is too complex to be there). sleepsleep wrote:
See "cell computing" and "playstation 3" |
|||
|
11 Jul 2007, 23:34 |
|
|
m 12 Jul 2007, 04:28
Oh!
|
|||
|
12 Jul 2007, 04:28 |
|
|
MazeGen 18 Apr 2008, 11:20
MazeGen wrote: It reminds me my idea of "Portable Flat Syntax" - a syntax that allows your asm code to compile to both x86-32 and x86-64. I was seriously thinking about it, but never realized it. I have turned this weird idea into an article: http://x86asm.net/articles/portable-x86-flat-syntax/ Small demo (using MASM macros) is included. |
|||
|
18 Apr 2008, 11:20 |
|
|
AlexP 18 Apr 2008, 11:57
Very nice article MazeGen, I'll be sure to read it. Unfortunately I don't have an x64 yet
 .... I'll get one in a few years when they get more popular... |
|||
|
18 Apr 2008, 11:57 |
|
|
revolution 18 Apr 2008, 12:01
I think what would be good/wanted is to take existing 32bit code (say the fasm sources) and compile to 64bit using just macros. Anyone keen for some "macro practice"?
|
|||
|
18 Apr 2008, 12:01 |
|
|
AlexP 18 Apr 2008, 14:31
that would be quite the 'macro practice'. I have seen someone use a lot of definitions to make x64 code look much like x86 code, I believe it was 'Brian Gladman' in his 64-bit conversion of AES code. |
|||
|
18 Apr 2008, 14:31 |
|
|
MazeGen 18 Apr 2008, 15:06
revolution, that wouldn't be possible. You need to know which operands hold pointers, because these need to be widened to 64 bits. Ordinary asm code doesn't include this information (unless you use some operand typing).
|
|||
|
18 Apr 2008, 15:06 |
|
|
revolution 18 Apr 2008, 15:15
MazeGen wrote: revolution, that wouldn't be possible. You need to know which operands hold pointers, because these need to be widened to 64 bits. Ordinary asm code doesn't include this information (unless you use some operand typing). |
|||
|
18 Apr 2008, 15:15 |
|
|
Raedwulf 01 May 2008, 20:20
From what my 1 minute skim read of all posts gathered, I think this would ultimately lead to the idea of what CIL, Java bytecode and LLVM etc. is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Level_Virtual_Machine _________________ Raedwulf |
|||
|
01 May 2008, 20:20 |
|
|
edfed 01 May 2008, 22:52
Quote: Portable assembly code?(between archs) without sucking the dick of Intel(c)(r)(tm), we can say that x86 style is one of the best asm coding style, then, instead of trying to make a source code, syntax, etc... portable across architectures, why not all architectures sharing the same OPCODES and Environment, boot at 7c00h, ivt at 0h, 8 general purpose registers, etc etc... you all know what is good in x86. 90h ==> nop for everybody. etc... ( i don't care about the opcodes but i know the machine don't know anything else. then, all arch with the only one binary syntax. mov eax,ebx edit: we cannot decide it. the power to make it is in the "hands" of the companies. |
|||
|
01 May 2008, 22:52 |
|
|
revolution 02 May 2008, 01:08
edfed wrote: we can say that x86 style is one of the best asm coding style, then, instead of trying to make a source code, syntax, etc... portable across architectures, why not all architectures sharing the same OPCODES and Environment, boot at 7c00h, ivt at 0h, 8 general purpose registers, etc etc... you all know what is good in x86. |
|||
|
02 May 2008, 01:08 |
|
|
edfed 02 May 2008, 01:25
little endian is the more logic , lsb first, msb last.
after, my arguments are more heap related than on topic, but all with only one syntax is not a bad deal.RISC, CISC, little & big endian, with or without extensions (SSEx..), low and high speed.. all can be doen with only one syntax. mov al,ah exists in x86 and can exist in every archs. |
|||
|
02 May 2008, 01:25 |
|
|
revolution 02 May 2008, 01:56
edfed wrote: mov al,ah exists in x86 and can exist in every archs. |
|||
|
02 May 2008, 01:56 |
|
|
edfed 02 May 2008, 08:53
then, Learn all assemblers. It is not a problem for assembly programmer.
some coders learn at least 5 langages ( C, C++, JAVA, PHP, JAVASCRIPT, Visual Basic, etc...). learning 5 different arch is not a big problem. having the best tools to devellop in is a problem. fasm can be a good start for all assemblers. i guess it is possible to use fasm interface for any arch. you still have adapted it to ARM. |
|||
|
02 May 2008, 08:53 |
|
|
Borsuc 02 May 2008, 22:30
Assembly is a single 'language'. Learning the instructions is only a slighter "low-level stuff" you need to handle, like learning conventions used in different platforms too (regardless of language).
What is important, for me (as a guy who started with C, and uses both C and asm) is the mentality that asm helps you develop. The low-level mentality that you will keep even when coding in HLL -- like knowing how a processor works. This is pretty universal to every arch. The compiler is brain-dead and thus good at optimizing low-level obvious instruction tricks (rearrangements for example). What's important is how you think about the low-level algorithm so you can decide it. Usually even in C you can find such low-level optimizations (small example of this is in this thread). But of course some optimizations only flourish in assembly |
|||
|
02 May 2008, 22:30 |
|
|
vid 02 May 2008, 23:12
I agree that most important aspect of assembly programming is knowing it. There is very little real-world use of Assembly programming today, but C or C++ programmer who doesn't know assembly doesn't seem "complete" to me.
|
|||
|
02 May 2008, 23:12 |
|
|
rugxulo 03 May 2008, 07:04
vid, I disagree about the "little real-world use" since we are the proof against that. Just because MS or Linux doesn't rely on it (much) doesn't mean it's not useful. Don't worry about marketing trends, worry instead about what you want to accomplish and how to achieve it.
|
|||
|
03 May 2008, 07:04 |
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|