From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 15:35:16 +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: <3db97e1aca68789709f453b0a6820e32@proxima.alt.za> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3db97e1aca68789709f453b0a6820e32@proxima.alt.za> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5c3bed04-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 5/6/07, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote: > > yes. and is it easier if you build it into the code generator? the > > designers actually dont give you a choice. > > Not easier, but at least you can escape the constraints laid down by > the designer, in that only the code generator implementor needs to be > burdened by them. I'm sure the code generator can be impossibly > difficult to get right, but you gain the ability to optimise as Plan 9 > C's compiler suite does. You are hardly likely to do so in a straight > assembler. > > ++L > > assmebler has its place. for a code generator writer it is necessary even as an intermediate step. for the rest of us it has no use. with the massively parallel processors with high very IPC like the one im simulating, assembler is just that. a testing tool.