Re: [9fans] speaking of kenc

[Richard Miller <9fans@hamnavoe.com>]

> The
> transputer had no assembly.

Not qute true actually.

The inmos occam compiler for the transputer did have an inline
assembly language construct.  But this quote from my copy of the
Transputer Development System manual (1988) shows its use was not
encouraged.  Note the implication that the machine language should
only be of interest to compiler writers ...

"The code insertion mechanism enables the user to access the
instruction set of the transputer directly within the framework of an
occam program.  Symbolic access to occam variable names is supported,
as is automatic jump sizing.  More details on the instruction set may
be found in the INMOS document 'The transputer instruction set -- a
compiler writer's guide'. 

"Code insertion may be employed to perform tasks not possible from
occam, or for particularly time-critical sections of a program.  There
are several reasons, however, which should encourage the user to
refrain from using code insertion as a solution to problems which may,
with some thought, be solved using occam.  Paramount among these is
that the validity of a system consisting entirely of occam can be
checked by the compiler.  A compiler can check usage of channels,
access to variables, communications protocols and range violations.  A
single code insert prevents the compiler from performing these checks
adequately.  A second reason for not using code insertions is that the
transputer instruction set is suited for use by a high level language,
particularly occam, and algorithms which are simple to code and easy
to debug in occam become difficult and obscure when coded in the
transputer instruction set directly."