assembly in future C standard HCF Gerry Wheeler

c

    Sponsored Links

    Next

  • 1. drawbacks of linux
    hi i want to know the drawbacks of linux. how does linux differ from windows and other operating systems? its advantages over other operating systems thanking u usha
  • 2. Defining the fields of a structure at run-time
    I am facing this problem.... I have to define a structure at runtime as the user specifies... The user will tell the number of fields,the actual fields...(maybe basic or array types or multiple arrays,etc) I do not understand how to define the structure at run time.i.e.what fields it will contain. Creating the field variables at run time is fine...but defining the structure so as to contain these fields is where the problem lies... I thought of unions within the structure representing each possible field variable... but again only one of these unions can exist at time...array of unions again similar problem. Any possible solution occuring to any one...please do let me know as early as possible. Thanks a lot... Nisha.
  • 3. Output as SOURCE CODE itself !!
    Hello Folks, I need a "C" program, whose output display its SOURCE CODE itself.. How can we do that? Please post solutions along with code example (if possible) Thanx..
  • 4. Password changing using mutation strings
    I Posted a question about how to incorporate changable passwords to my c/c++ programs without using a file to store the password in my college discussion forum and all answers included the usage of self mutating strings.But nobody actually knew how to incorporate it into the code. Can any one please help me with this?
  • 5. Traversing the link list from end
    Hi, I am new to link list programming.I need to traverse from the end of link list.Is there any way to find the end of link list without traversing from start(i.e traversing from first to find the next for null).Is there any way to find the length of linked list in c.My need is to traverse from the end to 5th node Regards, Mani

Re: assembly in future C standard HCF Gerry Wheeler

Postby Walter Banks » Sat, 04 Nov 2006 22:35:39 GMT

As this thread wanders off topic this industry was introduced to a new
mnemonic in Byte article about decoding the undocumented
Motorola 6800 instructions. The HCF (Halt Catch Fire) opcode $DD
or $D9. HFC locked up the processor and cycled the address bus
The author of that article was Gerry Wheeler.

Gerry Wheeler, 54, died October 15, 2006, advanced non-Hodgkins
lymphoma cancer. Gerry made significant contributions to the technology
of the embedded systems world and was a key part of the development
of many household name products.

Programmer, Ham KG4NBB, author, father, husband, active commuity
participant Gerry will be missed by all.

w..


Similar Threads:

1.assembly in future C standard

Peter Nilsson < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:

(Crossposted to comp.std.c, with followups directed there, hopefully
 appropriately.  The original post discussed the possibility of whether
 __asm or something similar to it would be added to the C standard.)

> Contrary to Richard Heathfield's categorical statement, it is not an
> absolute given that there will never be an asm keyword in C. But it
> is unlikely because it's already clear that the asm keyword in C++ has
> not served to truly standardise the syntax of inline assembly.

One idea that was not mentioned in the original thread (I imagine for
good reason, because it's a half-baked and probably stupid idea that
occurred to me reading your post) would be to allow for some kind of
conditional assembly, just perhaps something like

#pragma assemble
#pragma X86 /* Inner pragma's implementation-defined */
  /* Inline assembly, which the implementation can ignore or not */
#pragma no-assemble
  /* Stock C code for implementations that can't or won't accept the
   * assemble pragma: */
  for( i=1; i < 10; i++ ) {
    foo();
    /* ... */
  }
#pragma end-assemble

The end result would be something like "If the implementation attempts
to inline the assembly code contained within a #pragma assemble
directive, the behavior is implementation-defined.  Otherwise the
assembly code shall be ignored and the C code contained within any
corresponding #pragma no-assemble directive shall be compiled as
though no directives were present."  It would require adding some
duties to the #pragma directive, but it would allow implementors to
take a reasonable shot at using targetted assembly instructions when
appropriate and available, and reverting to ordinary C otherwise.

I'm sure there are reasons why this is stupid and/or impossible, or it
would have been done already :-)

> At the end of the day, the committee could probably spend many man
> weeks deciding issues on an __asm keyword, but for what? Most
> implementations will keep their existing syntax, and most programmers
> who use inline assembly will no doubt continue to prefer the localised
> syntax because it's less cumbersome than any standard syntax.

Indeed, but it's an interesting thought experiment to consider how the
committee *might* add assembly to C if they chose to do so.  (Well,
interesting to me, at least.)

-- 
C. Benson Manica           | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
cbmanica(at)gmail.com      | don't, I need to know.  Flames welcome.



Return to c

 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guest