Re: Structs in Assembly
- From: Bertrand Augereau <bertrand_myfamilynamegoeshere@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 12:56:03 +0100
Wrong. Once done, he will have an _HLL_, instead of an HLL Pre-Parser. Period.
So said, Troll, i am afraid that you under-estimate the time and capacity envolved with writing what you call an "x86 code generator"... and if it was as easy as what you seem to believe, our prefered ass-hole would have finished it since ages, instead of trying to sell an HLL Pre-Parser, on young heads, under the name of *Assembler*.
I'd say, Troll, you overestimate it.
The difficulty of implementing a compiler (and an assembler is one) depends on the complexity and expressiveness of the language and on the optimizations done.
Therefore a straightforward assembler is by definition the easiest of compilers (straight opcode translation and no optimization).
Of course, every feature you add towards higher level add complexity.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Structs in Assembly
- From: Betov
- Re: Structs in Assembly
- References:
- Structs in Assembly
- From: randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Structs in Assembly
- From: Bertrand Augereau
- Re: Structs in Assembly
- From: Betov
- Structs in Assembly
- Prev by Date: Re: Structs in Assembly
- Next by Date: Re: Structs in Assembly
- Previous by thread: Re: Structs in Assembly
- Next by thread: Re: Structs in Assembly
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|