flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Main > FASM for RISC processor

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
fasm9



Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Posts: 439
fasm9
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
Post 19 Dec 2003, 11:26
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
scientica
Retired moderator


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 689
Location: Linköping, Sweden
scientica
better? please, define better...

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

_________________
... a professor saying: "use this proprietary software to learn computer science" is the same as English professor handing you a copy of Shakespeare and saying: "use this book to learn Shakespeare without opening the book itself.
- Bradley Kuhn
Post 19 Dec 2003, 12:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
fasm9



Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Posts: 439
fasm9
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..
Post 19 Dec 2003, 13:04
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Randall Hyde



Joined: 03 Dec 2003
Posts: 57
Randall Hyde
fasm9 wrote:
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.


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).

Quote:

second, in using assembly, risc much easier than cisc/hybrid.

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

Code:
mov eax, 1234567
    


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.

Quote:

some textbook said there is a shortcoming to using risc.
well, we need some expert here to clarify it.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Post 19 Dec 2003, 17:08
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Octavio



Joined: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 366
Location: Spain
Octavio
[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?
Post 20 Dec 2003, 08:56
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.