🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3700003@uiucdcsp>, johnson@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU writes:
> 
> I consider designing assembler code using a high-level language to be
> "motherhood".  I have always done it that way (since I wrote my first
> big assembly program in 1976), I thought most "modern" programmers did
> it that way, and I teach all my students to do it that way.  Am I
> hopelessly naive?

Yes. The modern programmer only writes in assembly language if he needs
to utilize machine features not possible from a high level language or
he needs to get that last bit of speed. In neither case is writing the
program in C first especially helpful. Note that nobody writes "big"
assembly language programs anymore.

For example, the last chunk of assembler (VAX) I wrote was for catching
a Unix signal, forking, letting the parent continue, and doing a core
dump (via setting the trace trap bit in the PSL) in the child after
fiddling the stack frames to reflect the situation before the signal 
in the parent, so the debugger will print out the right stack trace,
etc. Part of this was in C, but the part that wasn't was completely 
unexpressible in C.

The last (relatively) large piece of assembler (68000) I wrote was a set
of bit-map manipulation routines. This was in assembler for efficiency.
It used techniques such as completely unrolling a single-instruction
loop (executed at most about 50 times) and branching into it at the 
right place, based on the instructions all being two bytes in size. Not
the sort of this one does in C, or that one does in assembler if you
start from a C program. It's fast though.

All this may not be true if you're stuck writing assembler on a machine
without an adequate high level language, but I presume that this is no
longer common. It also doesn't directly apply when you're writing a
large assembler program because you're learning about assembly language.
Starting from C might be good in that case. Then again, maybe it would
just lead to the student not leaning anything about machine architecture
that isn't expressible in in C.

     Radford Neal