I Have A Question About Pointers

[demosthenes2k8]

I'm sorry, but you appear to have a need to overcomplicate everything. If there's really no need to write the code in assembly, it would probably be better to write it in C++, because the compiler can probably write better assembly than a human.

[davidthefat]

Originally Posted by mikets

Are you talking about the PowerPC processor in the cRIO or are you talking about Intel processor? Your initial post listed all the Intel processor registers. So I am not sure which one you are asking?

That is true, that was written for my computer, the thread started out as a general question and is becoming more specific. I know the PPC syntax is different. I don't think that its much of a big deal to transition from AT&T syntax to PPC syntax. I know in the IA 32 systems, it runs in protected mode. But I am not sure about PPCs

Originally Posted by demosthenes2k8

I'm sorry, but you appear to have a need to overcomplicate everything. If there's really no need to write the code in assembly, it would probably be better to write it in C++, because the compiler can probably write better assembly than a human.

There is no need, but I have the mentality that I would learn so much more from it. I mean there is no NEED for me to even be on the team. You see where I am going with this?

[mikets]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

That is true, that was written for my computer, the thread started out as a general question and is becoming more specific. I know the PPC syntax is different. I don't think that its much of a big deal to transition from AT&T syntax to PPC syntax. I know in the IA 32 systems, it runs in protected mode. But I am not sure about PPCs

BTW, there is no AT&T syntax, you probably meant Intel syntax. Also. there is no IA32 system. There is IA64 but 32-bit system is called x86. IA64 is an entirely different 64-bit architecture from Intel. The curent 64-bit Intel processors x64 is different from IA64 (Itanium). All new Intel processors are now 64-bit processors but they are backward compatible with 32-bit (x86) systems.

[davidthefat]

Originally Posted by mikets

BTW, there is no AT&T syntax, you probably meant Intel syntax. Also. there is no IA32 system. There is IA64 but 32-bit system is called x86. IA64 is an entirely different 64-bit architecture from Intel. The curent 64-bit Intel processors x64 is different from IA64 (Itanium). All new Intel processors are now 64-bit processors but they are backward compatible with 32-bit (x86) systems.

According to Intel there is http://www.intel.com/products/processor/manuals/
And I read that Intanium was the one that was NOT compatible with x86, that is why Intel uses AMD's x86-64 architecture.

[mikets]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

According to Intel there is http://www.intel.com/products/processor/manuals/
And I read that Intanium was the one that was NOT compatible with x86, that is why Intel uses AMD's x86-64 architecture.

Well, I guess I did not follow the Intel terminology as close as I thought. In any case, Intel has three architectures: Itanium 64 (IA64) is not compatible with anything, x64 which is compatible with amd64 and the old 32-bit whatever it is called (x86).

[Ether]

Originally Posted by demosthenes2k8

the compiler can probably write better assembly than a human.

Although I agree that it is seldom necessary (or desirable) to write assembly code, an experienced assembly programmer can in many cases implement optimizations that a compiler won't use. The downside is that the code can be a brittle maintenance nightmare.