From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:37:57 +0200 From: tlaronde@polynum.com To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20110717163757.GA1564@polynum.com> References: <0a7dc5268ce4dceb21ea20cdcc191693@terzarima.net> <27544caa847ff61fed1ae5f4d87218d0@ladd.quanstro.net> <20110717073847.GB539@polynum.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] NUMA Topicbox-Message-UUID: 039bad06-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:51:04AM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote: > [...] >=20 > iirc, almost all isa -> =B5op translations are handled > by hardware for intel. i shouldn't be so lazy and look this up > again. >>From what I read, IIRC (for example in Hennessy and Patterson, some years ago), even the x86 family has RISC underneath. >=20 > >=20 > > I have an example with gcc4.4, compiling not my source, but D.E.K.'s > > TeX.=20 >=20 > i think you're mixing apples and oranges. gcc has nothing to do with > whatever is running inside a procesor, microcode or not. It is an illustration of the result of complexity, not a direct match to hardware. This is the evolution that is becoming worrying. At the beginning, programmers were directly programming the machine. Since it was a pain, some assembly languages were born; but their symbolic and almost macro-definition kind made a direct translation so an easy guarantee. This is definitively not the case anymore with something in between that does more and more complex (and hidden) things: the compiler set. Languages are more and more "high level" that is far from the hardware. The hardware is more and more complex and not pure hardware. The result of a "story" (the source) written by someone (programmer) who does not know exactly what he says; with a compiler that does not tell what it does; feeding a hardware that can not guarantee it will do exactly what it's told to, this result is not, shall we say, soothing. I know that english speaking culture is fond of mystery and magics (from Shakespeare to Harry Potter; Lord of the Rings to Batman and so on). And perhaps the "Red Dragon" book about compiler is meant precisely to emphasize that programming is kind of some Arthurian initiation, fighting amidst the fog. But my french cartesian brains are not a perfect match for this ;) --=20 Thierry Laronde http://www.kergis.com/ Key fingerprint =3D 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C