Re: To RISC or not to RISC
- From: Herbert Kleebauer <klee@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:40:15 +0100
Donkey wrote:
Sorry to state the obvious and something that you likely already know
but this is just another example of legacy in the x86. Accumulator
High/Low (AH/AL), Base High/Low (BH/BL), Counter High/Low (CH/CL) and
Data High/Low (DH/DL) Destination Index (DI), Source Index (SI), Stack
Pointer (SP) and Base Pointer (BP), prefix an E for 32 bit Extended.
That's not correct. Intel makes the hardware and for compatibility we
still have the same register set in modern x86 processors as in the
8086 (extended to 32 bit). But nowhere in the chip are the names AL,AH,AX...
engraved nor are the register addressed by this names (but by three bits in the
opcode). It's the writer of an assembler and not Intel who decides which
symbolic names to use for the registers (and for the instructions and operand
size). And I see only two reasons why even in currently developed assemblers
this names are still used:
1. the author of the assembler is a sadist who enjoys it see the user
of the assembler suffer
2. or the user of the assembler prefer to use this names (and the Intel
syntax in general). If the latter is the case, then there are also
two possible reasons:
- they want to show how smart the are, because they are able to read
and write such an unreadable collection of characters and they never
would use a clean and simple syntax and proper register names because
everybody could program in assembler then
- or they are masochist who enjoy it to suffer from such a syntax
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: To RISC or not to RISC
- From: Donkey
- Re: To RISC or not to RISC
- From: f0dder
- Re: To RISC or not to RISC
- References:
- To RISC or not to RISC
- From: KJH
- Re: To RISC or not to RISC
- From: Herbert Kleebauer
- Re: To RISC or not to RISC
- From: Donkey
- To RISC or not to RISC
- Prev by Date: Re: A modern view of the halting problem
- Next by Date: Re: To RISC or not to RISC
- Previous by thread: Re: To RISC or not to RISC
- Next by thread: Re: To RISC or not to RISC
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|