Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 23, 2:03 pm, Chuck Crayne <ccra...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:08:41 GMT
Robert Redelmeier <red...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
ARM is RISC and owns the
low-power market.
It is not the technology which I am disputing, but merely the continued
use of obsolete terminology. In the literal sense of the acronym, ARM is
definitely not RISC. Not only does ARM have a large number of
instructions, including multiple multiply instructions, but it even has
(Oh horror of horrors) a divide instruction.
In the original RISC concept, such inherently time consuming
instruction were anathema.
I guess these days the technology is advanced enough to consider a
bunch of multiply and divide instruction RISCy enough. :) And if one
considers the hardware multiplier implementation, just one signed
implementation with enough bits can do unsigned, signed and mixed
(signed x unsigned) multiplication. So, the multiplication instruction
opcode is just another input to that same multiplier. I'd say not such
a big deal.
Alex
.
- References:
- NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Chuck Crayne
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Chuck Crayne
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Chuck Crayne
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Chuck Crayne
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Robert Redelmeier
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Chuck Crayne
- NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Prev by Date: Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Next by Date: Re: NASM preprocessor
- Previous by thread: Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Next by thread: Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|