News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on ASM. Parent comment

Re:ASM by CountHackulus on Friday April 12, 2013 @12:09PM (#5539295)
For nearly any other assembly language, like say System 390 or PowerPC, it's a straightforward 1-1 mapping. Macros and pseudo instructions more fall into the real of text pre-processing than compiling.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:ASM by aidenn0 on Monday April 15, 2013 @07:04PM (#5555074)
Nit-pick Power is many to one, not one-to-one (there is no "shift" machine code, but there is a rotate-and-mask machine code that shift operators are translated into).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:ASM by CountHackulus on Saturday April 20, 2013 @12:27AM (#5580202)
I've written part of a compiler for Power and never used the shift machine code, maybe it's just the setup I was using, but I use rlwinm[.] all the time.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:ASM by chc on Friday April 12, 2013 @01:10PM (#5539759)
It's only barely more 1-1 than C to assembly is without any optimization steps. When you see a C program, you have a very good idea what the assembly will look like.
[ Parent | on HN ]