lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux-asm (was A patch for linux 2.1.127)
    On 13 Nov 1998, Ken Raeburn wrote:

    > Check out:
    > http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/v2faq/faq135.html#Syntax
    > for differences in assembly syntax and tutorial references, and
    > http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/v2faq/faq136.html#Converting ASM
    > for some scripts and stuff for converting syntaxes, and references for
    > NASM and JAS.
    >

    Lets change this subject to Linux-asm

    > Contributions of code to support Intel syntax directly would be
    > welcome. (Of course it has to be well-written, as much as that's
    > possible in the gas code base, assigned to the FSF, etc., etc.) Or
    > you may be able to pay someone already familiar with both syntaxes to
    > do the work. But please don't spew complaints and insults just
    > because no one has volunteered the time already.
    >

    I thank you for your response. I did not do anything by echo the
    acid remarks emitted by the GAS Assembler.


    I have been forgoing comment on Linux Assembly Language and the
    available tools until my demonstration was complete. I have
    written some Assembly code and come 'C' code to check its
    correctness and execution speed.

    I won't consume any more bandwidth on this list until some
    interested programmers have reviewed my paper and checked out
    the code.

    Typical output from the test program, testing a procedure that
    is essential in kernel programming (unnamed here) is:


    Verifying ASM code
    Counting C loops for 2 seconds
    Counting ASM loops for 2 seconds
    C routine : 44263
    AS routine : 539274
    Change : 12.18 times faster
    AS clocks : 573 clocks/byte : 0.28
    C clocks : 16017 clocks/byte : 7.82

    A paper, source code, and examples are available via anonymous
    ftp from:
    boneserver.analogic.com pub/downloads/linux/linux-asm.tar.gz

    (I'm expecting 1,000 hits per second ;)


    > There are very strong reasons gas supports the AT&T syntax, namely its
    > primary use as a back end to gcc and the predominance of that syntax
    > on UNIX platforms. If you think that the change in syntax was a bad
    > move, you could complain to AT&T, but it's years too late.
    >

    True -- but read on.

    > There are obviously reasons why it would be nice to support Intel
    > syntax too. But, equally obviously, those reasons haven't been
    > important enough for anyone else to do yet. If it's important for
    > you, then you're volunteered. :-)
    >

    It is important to me. I want you to read my paper and review my
    assembly code. Then I want you to tell me if you think I should
    write an Intel extension to GAS or if you think my talents would
    be better served by writing some assembly-language for some Linux-
    kernel procedures.

    > And if you don't at least consider it, then apparently it's not that
    > important to you either. (I mean, important for *gas* to support
    > Intel syntax. Clearly finding *something* that will support it is
    > important to you, and whether that thing needs to be gas is an
    > entirely separate question.) Which would be fine too. Maybe someone
    > else will do it someday. Maybe not. Free software is like that.

    I __think__ Intel Assembly. There are others like me. If we could
    put '.Intel' on the first line of a GAS source-script, I could make
    some severe improvements in some kernel bottle-necks. If I have
    to translate, it becomes very, very, hard. GAS's idea of a MACRO
    is like C's idea. It just replaces text. A good MACRO Assembler
    does much more than that. In my test program, I had to write a
    'C' program to generate the instruction stream I required.

    Also, check out the source, in particular the code-generator,
    codestream.c, which generates codestream.S. There are GAS bugs
    (features?) I had to work-around.

    The last line in my Paper states Linux is not Unix. Unix is
    a primative subset.

    Cheers,
    Dick Johnson
    ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
    Penguin : Linux version 2.1.127 on an i586 machine (66.15 BogoMips).
    Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology.


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.055 / U:0.576 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site