Assembly language programming in unix environment

Dick Dowdell dick.dowdell at gmail.com
Mon Sep 21 14:33:36 UTC 2009


On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:22 AM, freeburn <hossain at finder-lbs.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 13:24 +0200, Odd wrote:
> > reeburn wrote:
> > > No i'm just suggesting that u have to do a little hard-work for
> > findiing
> > > necessary tools and information about ur processor. may be an
> > assembler
> > > for ur RISC architecture processor. but i do think if u want to
> > > understand the machine in the lowest level, u have to know
> > > microprocessors very well
> >
> > Stop spouting nonsense. If this is what you learn about
> > microprocessors today, your teachers are inept and should
> > be fired.
> >
> what portion of it is nonsense? may be my teachers are dumb and a result
> of their inadequate intelligence , i'm a huge pile of gurbage. but u
> should at-least have the decency to point out the "non-sense" part?
> intel is cisc. AMD is RiSC. programming CISC is easier. i know from my
> experience of writing codes for intel processors. i have never
> programmed AMD.but in my workplace we usually deal with avr
> micro-controllers, avr family of microprocessors are RISC. and there
> assembly code is kind of ugly compared with intel.
>
> plz enlighten me. because this is the purpose of this mailing list. if
> any my ideas about microprocessors are wrong please correct me. i'm
> still a student. i just had one microprocessor course, a related lab,
> worked on small projects , some studying out of the book for my own
> interest ,and having a part time job experience in an embedded systems
> company , thats all i got. pls let me know.
>
> >
> > You should talk to that guy about your "AMD RISC" vs "Intel CISC"
> > confusion. Perhaps he can set you straight. If not, Google can.
> >
> > Sigh..
>
> i don't understand ur argument here correctly. if it is over risc/cisc
> than plz explain what it is.
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>

Freeburn,

Where did you get the idea that AMD processors were somehow more difficult
to program than Intel processors? They both use the Intel instruction set.
With the exception of short periods of time when one vendor is catching up
with the other (and has yet to implement new instruction set extensions)
they are, for all practical purposes, identical.  AMD has built its business
on being code compatible with Intel.  When one installs Ubuntu, one decides
whether to install the 32-bit versus the 64-bit version, not whether to
install Intel or AMD.

As a developer, with 30+ years in the business, I have worked with RISC
processors such as the IBM PowerPC --- and yes assembly language coding is
more tedious.  Funny thing, C compilers eliminated the difference.  Another
reason that assembly language lost its economic appeal.  For 99.99% of
commercial programming, it is more cost effective to minimize the need to
deal with hardware differences.  I've had to fire more than one programmer
who refused to learn that lesson and chose to waste time and money squeezing
the last bit of performance from an already fast processor.

Regards,
Dick Dowdell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20090921/094cdc32/attachment.html>


More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list