Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #592469 > unrolled thread

Re: Assembly is avoided whenever possible, because it isn't portable.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Assembly is avoided whenever possible, because it isn't portable. Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 03:21 -0400
    Re: Assembly is avoided whenever possible, because it isn't portable. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 13:26 -0700
      Re: Assembly is avoided whenever possible, because it isn't portable. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 11:12 -0700
        pi > 00 noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 12:53 -0700
          00 < pi noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 16:00 -0700
    Re: Assembly is avoided whenever possible, because it isn't portable. Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-08-10 10:53 +0000
    Re: Assembly is avoided whenever possible, because it isn't portable. Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-08-10 15:58 -0400

#592469 — Re: Assembly is avoided whenever possible, because it isn't portable.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2016 07:11:23 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:

>
>Assembly is avoided whenever possible, because it isn't portable. 

Its quite portable. Most processors in use today emulate x86
microprocessors assembly language. Assembly language is just harder to
use since its statements are lower level. You probably don't want to
use it for higher math but neither would you want to use C. C has
offloaded what used to be in compilers to "Included Libraries"
resulting in massive software bloat.


...
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#592557

prove that two is less than pi, but
never equal to pi

> Its quite portable. Most processors in use today emulate x86

> offloaded what used to be in compilers to "Included Libraries"
> resulting in massive software bloat.
> 
> 
> ...
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592672

very simple planar pr00f, but
I think I've found a sp[atial one, two

> prove that two is less than pi, but
> never equal to pi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592955 — pi > 00

so, give a pr00f that pi is more than, but
ne'er equal to pi, except in the degenerate case,
which is really not important

> I think I've found a sp[atial one, two
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593292 — 00 < pi

yeah, I meant, 2 < pi,
in any base at least three

> so, give a pr00f that t00 is more than, but
> ne'er equal to pi, except in the degenerate case,
> which is really not important
> 
> > I think I've found a sp[atial one, two
> >

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592650

On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 03:21:07 -0400, Michael J. Strickland wrote:

>
> You probably don't want to
> use it for higher math
>

I am not sure what you mean by "higher math," but, in general,
one WOULD want to use assembly, especially if said "higher math"
can be implemented using parallel processing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592681

On 09/08/2016 3:21 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2016 07:11:23 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:
>
>>
>> Assembly is avoided whenever possible, because it isn't portable.
>
> Its quite portable. Most processors in use today emulate x86
> microprocessors assembly language. Assembly language is just harder to
> use since its statements are lower level. You probably don't want to
> use it for higher math but neither would you want to use C. C has
> offloaded what used to be in compilers to "Included Libraries"
> resulting in massive software bloat.

No, actually, most processors in use today, do *not* emulate x86, they 
are now mostly ARM-based. Only Intel and AMD are using x86, everyone 
else is using ARM. Mind you that is a very large number of processors, 
but cellphones outnumber PC's these days.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web