Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: What the compiler won't do you for you Message-ID: Date: 7 Mar 91 13:40:46 GMT References: <23481:Mar311:05:3591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <3061@charon.cwi.nl> <4267:Mar602:32:0591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 35 In article <4267:Mar602:32:0591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > At first, instead of learning five different assembly languages and > figuring out how to write inlined assembly code under five different > compilers, the programmer will copy five routines straight out of > manuals. How does this differ from copying 5 inline assembly examples straight out of 5 manuals, except that under your plan it's less obvious that the code is optimised for one particular compiler? > as time goes by, idioms for a certain instruction can > only become more standardized, Right. Unless there is a definite conscious effort to do so, things in general don't move in that direction. Just look at UNIX. Or code formatting in C. > Is there anyone else here who understands why suggestions like this are > so pointless? I can't wait for the language designers to catch up and > force everyone to provide an mp library. But you think it's OK to wait for them to catch up and standardise a bunch of poorly-defined idioms? > Why do you refuse to admit that the > programmer should be able to take advantage of those instructions > without sacrificing portability? #ifdef frobco asm("..."); #else count_ones(...); #endif -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"