From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <2bc44298a13cec32508604644fbc9d6b@proxima.alt.za> To: 9fans@9fans.net Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:53:52 +0200 From: lucio@proxima.alt.za In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] FP register usage in Plan9 assembler Topicbox-Message-UUID: 827c42fa-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > To that end, the Plan 9 syntax is fine for teaching assembler. And > so doing, a person is better able to write good C code. The only > disadvantage is when learning the assembler one has to translate front > the manufacturer's documentation and the Plan 9 standard syntax. I think too much depends on the perception of a need to use assembly. If you start from the assumption that assembly can be relegated to pin-point optimisation on one hand and architecture-focused instructions on the other, that leaves a huge space in the middle where one can use a more human notation to represent abstractions. But when you cannot escape needing to use architecture-dependent coding for abstract concepts, the battle is irreversibly lost. Even, maybe especially, Plan 9 gecomes an easily resisted force trying to shift an immovable object. Lucio.