From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 14:30:52 +0800 From: "Rogelio Serrano" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] speaking of kenc In-Reply-To: <2916a2dcd88478a6db7f0603d5401aa5@proxima.alt.za> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <2916a2dcd88478a6db7f0603d5401aa5@proxima.alt.za> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5b668790-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 5/6/07, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote: > > besides, its so easy to write one. > > provided you have the instruction set manuals. > > Oh, yeah? For the Intel x86 series? Across all its instruction sets, > emulation modes and addressing modes? How long do you think it will > take you? And what language would you write in? On what platform? > > ++L > > yes. and is it easier if you build it into the code generator? the designers actually dont give you a choice. i wrote an assembler as a testing tool for the code generator. in the end i just refactored the assembler into the code generator. i just coded for a small subset that is needed. the root of all this evil is the designer of the processor. can we make them change their ways? not until we start designing our own. oh right i could just buy a non-x86 non-pc system. like i can find any within 1k km where i live.