Article View: comp.lang.misc
Article #1885Re: Re: Aggressive optimization
From: Tom Thomson
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 1990 16:03
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 1990 16:03
13 lines
1232 bytes
1232 bytes
In article <8960020@hpfcso.HP.COM> mjs@hpfcso.HP.COM (Marc Sabatella) writes: >None of these transformations violate the cardinal rule of assemblers, namely >that of providing a one-to-one translation. That is, pseudo-ops, registers one to one translation? back in the 60s we used to talk about the Fortran assembler; even earlier we had machines like Deuce where the assembler would fix the placement of instructions for you to minimise drum latencies, which was maybe one-to-one still but very much against the spirit of your proposed restriction on assemblers. >accordingly. The MIPS "assembler", if the instruction scheduling or whatever >cannot be disabled, fails this test of assembler-ness. > but behaves just like 1950s assemblers!
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<3674@stl.stc.co.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!tomReferences:
<2301@wn1.sci.kun.nl> <8960020@hpfcso.HP.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!tom From: tom@stl.stc.co.uk (Tom Thomson) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Re: Aggressive optimization Message-ID: <3674@stl.stc.co.uk> Date: 1 Nov 90 16:03:13 GMT References: <2301@wn1.sci.kun.nl> <8960020@hpfcso.HP.COM> Sender: news@stl.stc.co.uk Reply-To: "Tom Thomson" <tom@stl.stc.co.uk> Organization: STC Technology Limited, London Road, Harlow, Essex, UK Lines: 13