| Newsgroups |
gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.strongtalk |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
Peter,
I agree with the comment "one suspects" but I have to wonder what
those were; performance is rarely an argument in my mind -- especially
in light of the capabilities of modern compilers and CPUs; the code
was written approximately 10 years ago. I find conversion to C/C++
for portability and maintainability (the latter being there are far
more C/C++ programmers than assembler these days) a compelling
argument for converting it C/C++.
Yes, the GNU compiler supports inline assembler, and I've used it in
many places already to replace the VC++ inline assembler in the .cpp
files. In fact, the GCC tooling has a powerful built in assembler for
"full blown, hard core, bit twiddlin' action"(TM). The syntax follows
the AT&T assembler syntax. The biggest hassle is all the macros that
were used; GAS macro support is not equivalent and I'm afraid that its
going to reduce maintainability when I port those .asm files that are
heavily dependent on macros.
However, I appreciate you chiming in and I'll mark that 1 vote to
leave it be and just port the assembler.
-- dave
On Apr 7, 4:01 pm, "Peter Golde" <[email protected]> wrote:
> One suspects that there were good reasons those routines were in assembler
> to begin with, having to do with performance and/or functionality. I would
> be hesistant to move them without good reason.
>
> Does the GNU compiler support an inline assembly syntax? If so, that would
> seem to be an easier path, at least at first.
>
> --Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
>
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> [email protected]
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 9:06 AM
> To: Strongtalk-general
> Subject: porting of assembler code ...
>
> Gentlebeings and other lifeforms,
>
> I've been studying the assembly language portions of the strongtalk vm
> codebase, in order to get ready to port them to the GNU toolset;
> specifically for linux and I'd like to pose to a general question.
>
> Are there compelling reasons to keep all the current assembler in
> assembler? Can we move some, or perhaps all, of the existing
> assembler routines into C or C++?
>
> Any and all input is welcomed ...
>
> -- dave
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Strongtalk-general" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/strongtalk-general?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---