From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 06:57:17 -0800 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <923cc735026594f404fc46999749e695@lilly.quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: <2bc44298a13cec32508604644fbc9d6b@proxima.alt.za> References: <2bc44298a13cec32508604644fbc9d6b@proxima.alt.za> 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: 829611a8-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > 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, splhi(), and splx() (see splhi(9), which enable and disable interrupts, are abstract concepts that are neither optimization, nor are able to be expressed in c. there is no harm done by this pattern. it simply is the way things are. - erik