From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Anticipating=20a=20Reply?= Subject: Re: Nasm v/s Gas Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 06:36:05 +0000 (GMT) Sender: linux-assembly-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20021204063605.88102.qmail@web41113.mail.yahoo.com> References: <001c01c29b5b$6dc2fe20$6801a8c0@rhyde> Reply-To: ruxyz@yahoo.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <001c01c29b5b$6dc2fe20$6801a8c0@rhyde> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Randall Hyde , Robert Plantz Cc: linux-assembly@vger.kernel.org Hello Everybody, Thank you for all the responses provided by all you learned people out there . As pointed out in the mails , I too was interested in learning Assembly to know what is going on at the assembly level when programming in C , so that I can write HLL code that generates decent assembly. I would look forward to Mr.Randall Hyde's new book which takes this aspect into consideration and thank him for his efforts . Thank you once again for all your inputs . Best Regards ! --- Randall Hyde wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Plantz" > To: "Randall Hyde" > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 9:24 PM > Subject: Re: Nasm v/s Gas > > > > Randy, > > > > Thank you for your very thoughtful comments. I > have consulted your > > online book often and appreciate your expertise in > this area. > > > > I really should take the time to learn NASM > > so I can make a better informed decision. (We have > a 12 unit > > teaching load every semester (no TAs), so it's a > struggle just > > to keep up.) > > > > One thing to note is my parenthetical comment: > > > > >> (The whole point of our class is to teach > > >> what is going on at the asm level when > programming in C/C++.) > > > > which I should have placed at the beginning. > > > > We decided many years ago that it was not > important for our > > students to learn assembly language programming. > Our course > > was renamed "Computer Organization: Software". We > really do > > try to show approximately what the compiler is > generating. > > We are trying to demystify the machine operations > going on > > behind C. Within this context, the course serves > as sort of > > an introduction to computer architecture. > > Well, that makes sense, then. A machine > organization course > could easily get by with Gas since the purpose of > teaching assembly > in such a course is not to teach students how to > write programs in > assembly code, but to teaching them how to write HLL > code that > generates decent assembly. > > > > > It's also important to note that I am at a CSU > campus, not > > a UC. Our courses are probably not quite as > ambitious. > > Actually, when I taught at CSU (Cal Poly Pomona), we > actually > got *farther* along in assembly than at UC. The > reason was simple: > the students took a "digital electronics" course > prior to the assembly > course. It wasn't really an electronics course > (though they did wire > up a few simple projects). It really was a machine > organization > course where the students learned about numbering > systems, digital > logic, and a ton of other things that wind up > consuming half the term > in an assembly course without such a prerequisite. > It was great because > I could get much farther in the assembly course. At > UCR, the > "Machine Organization and Assembly Language > Programming" course > spent about 3-4 weeks covering all that prerequisite > material prior to > getting into the actual assembly programming. With > just six or seven > weeks to teach assembly, you can't get very far, > which is why I've always > worked at figuring out how to make the process more > efficient. > > > > I fully understand that many people (including > some of my > > best friends :-) ) do not agree with this > philosophy. > > Actually, if you'd just said that it was a Computer > Organization course, > I probably would have agreed with the approach right > from the start. > Indeed, I'm currently working on a new book that > attempts to teach > Machine Organization using HLLs as much as possible > (and the last chapter, > which I'm currently working on, covers HLL->machine > code translation by > a compiler). Although it's obvious that a > programmer who knows assembly > language really well makes a good HLL programmer, > I've never been convinced > that you have to become an accomplished assembly > programmer in order to > write good HLL code. I believe that by studying > machine organization really > well, it's quite possible to write the same quality > HLL code that someone who > know assembly would be capable of writing. We'll > see if this text I'm working > on takes people a little bit closer to that goal. > Randy Hyde > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line > "unsubscribe linux-assembly" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ________________________________________________________________________ Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV. visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com