| ??? 04/05/03 22:28 Read: times |
#42962 - RE: Kalpak Responding to: ???'s previous message |
The whole point of assembler is that there is a direct, 1:1 correspondence between the assembler mnemonics and the processor opcodes - so you always know precisely what code will be generated for a particular assembler source line.
As soon as you start abstracting to a higher level - eg, with algebraic notation - you remove this certainty, since there will very often be more than one possible way to implement an algebraic expression in the underlying instruction set; eg, there are several ways to implement the algebraic expression a = 0 So, if you value programmer convenience over deterministic code generation, why not just use a high-level language like 'C'?! |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| arithmetic operators-assembly language | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: arithmetic operators-assembly language | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: hans & pranav | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: arithmetic operators-assembly language | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: arithmetic operators-assembly language | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Kalpak | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Kalpak | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Kalpak | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Kalpak - Andy | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: Kalpak | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
RE: arithmetic operators-assembly language | 01/01/70 00:00 |



