Re: Why HLL and not C?
- From: Robert Redelmeier <redelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:04:23 GMT
Andreas Kochenburger <akk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in part:
I meant HL Library, not HL Language. Within asm in C you
can call C functions easily, also from the C library.
Oh, you mean libc calls from asm. "Asm in C" usually
means `c` code with inline asm routines.
AFAIK assembler HLLs provide more or less the same
functionality as a C library.
Yes.
Paul Carter recommends in his PC Assembly Tutorial book to
go the C way. He seems convincing.
I agree.
I am only wondering wether there are strong arguments for
using assembler HLLs despite his advice.
It depends entirely on the functionality you require.
I like libc because it's easily available, well documented
and generally debugged. But sometimes, the FORTRAN libs
might be more useful :)
The advantage of an asm.lib would be complex access to
processor peculiarities (like MMX) that are not included
in libc. But in general, I tolerate libraries only for IO
and these are well covered by libc.
-- Robert
.
- References:
- Why HLL and not C?
- From: Andreas Kochenburger
- Re: Why HLL and not C?
- From: Robert Redelmeier
- Re: Why HLL and not C?
- From: Andreas Kochenburger
- Why HLL and not C?
- Prev by Date: Re: Binaries within bash
- Next by Date: Re: Faster HexToBuffer Routines
- Previous by thread: Re: Why HLL and not C?
- Next by thread: Re: Why HLL and not C?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|