Path: 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

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!