You are not logged in.
Why not add at Languages section the ASM language ?
There are hundreds of languages out there, why not add them all?
Well, we have a section for C, in C sometimes is used asm inline, and several works underlinux are done in asm. I think in linux the most used is C & ASM. For example at kernel we only see C & asm. ;)
Why not add ? :wink:
ps.: If you don't want add, what section should i post about ASM ?
Because there is not enough demand for it (We also have a Java section and that's hardly used, the same would happen to an asm section, except if you spammed it full ;-).
Post it in the C forum, as you said, C supports inline assembly after all. The general section would also be acceptable.
(I'm afraid I won't be able to answer much assembly question cause I hardly know it, I would put my bets on Nope).
ASM is not ONE language. ASM is short for inline Assembler. Assembler is
a synonym that stands for directly using the cpu's machine language. If
your C code contains ASM statements it will not compile ok on computers
using a different platform as every cpu type uses its own set of those
commands which are additionally different on the base of the processors
design patterns. Even within the same processor family or on so called
compatible processors there are already differences in this area. So if you
write Assembler to utilize the special commands of 3Dnow! from the Atlon
line it will not work on an Intel processor. If you use commands both, the
Intel and the Athlon understands it will not work on a PowerPC G5 or
68000, in some cases not even on I486 processors. Assembler is
extremely hardware specific, it is also the "language" with the least
abstraction level, making portable programming completely impossible.
So honestly, it doesn't make any sense to have an ASM subsection in such
a general forum. Besides, outside from kernel programming ASM isn't
used that much. It might make sense to tune hotspots here and there in a
program, to utilise special cpu commands, but normally, using the right
compiler switches to optimise the code for a certain platform will be so
good that it's not worth the hassle.
:lol: Don't put your hopes on me. I have learned Assembler for i386 a
decade or so ago, but it only made me see that Assembler for this
platform is such a lousy thing that I won't touch it anymore. I've written
Assembler code, even hole programs. One of the longest ones used up
500 pages printed (120 lines per page, 100 chars per line) and that was
macro assembler, translating in almost 64KByte of code. I was fluent in
Assembler for 20 or so processor families at one time, but I don't touch
that anymore unless I have no choice.
And, don't expect much help from ME on the subject, either... ;-)
When I was in college (long, long ago), I knew Vax assembly
language, as well as Z-80 machine language (the actual raw hex
opcodes, which had to be manually entered one-by-one via a hex
keypad!), but I wiped that nonsense from my brain to make room
for more sane material, as soon as I got the chance... ;-) Playing
with some assembly language early on, to get a feel for what's
needed in low-level coding is a good thing... But, actually USING
it on a daily basis is simply pure madness... ;-)