HI, admin and FASM-team.

i know you are busy man, and have no interest in non-x86.

i hope you change your mind.
i think FASM is open assembler, so is there many possibilities way to go.

one reason i post this,
because i heard RISC is much better than CISC or hybrid, especially in assembly; simplicity


--
openrisc 1000
http://www.opencores.org/projects/or1k/Silicon

better? please, define better...

It depends on what you're going to do with the instructions.

i am not specialist, maybe i am just a newbie,

i have to say something here,
First, openrisc 1000, real open source hardware, keep in my mind,
there is no opencisc/hybrid hardware now, hardware expert choose RISC architecture over cisc/hybrid, i guess there is a reason to do so.

second, in using assembly, risc much easier than cisc/hybrid.
some textbook said there is a shortcoming to using risc.
well, we need some expert here to clarify it.

third, i think there is a common sense in assembly, it lives with electronics.
it will work on the other hardware just like openrisc 1000/opencore.
i.e., meta-assembler.

--
sorry my poor english, it can't express my feeling well..

Note that both RISC and CISC architectures are passe. New (non-x86) computer architectures are heading off in different directions. The whole "RISC vs. CISC" argument is so, well, yesterday...

In the marketplace, "true" RISC has failed miserably (Power Mac not withstanding, though some do not consider the PPC to be a "true" RISC machine).


You've been reading too many college textbooks written by professors who hate the x86 architecture. This statement simply is not true.
Simpler instructions does not mean that it's easier to program the chip in assembler. Indeed, it means you've got to figure out how to put multiple instructions together to do simple tasks. That actually makes learning assembly language more difficult. Yes, the x86 has some crazy instructions (when you consider MMX, SSE, etc.). But you don't have to learn these crazy instructions to do real assembly coding. You *can* use simple instructions like



Rather than having to use a sequence of instructions to load the L.O. portion of the constant into a register and the H.O. portion of the constant, etc. You can also take advantage of complex addressing modes to load variables into a register, that takes several instructions on a RISC machine.


It takes more instructions to do the same thing with a RISC chip. Learning what an individual instruction does isn't too much work. Learning how to put those instructions together to solve problems is where the real work is when learning assembly. Because RISC requires you to put larger sequences of instructions together to accomplish what can be done with a single x86 instruction, RISC requires more effort to learn.


????
I don't see the connection at all.

Cheers,
Randy Hyde

[quote="fasm9"]HI, admin and FASM-team.

>i know you are busy man, and have no interest in non-x86.

exactly about wich computer are you talking, and what are the advantages to x86-pc
And i heard that compilers do a very good job with risc machines,then
why to use assembly?