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

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #26679

Re: Portable Assembly

From David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups comp.arch.embedded
Subject Re: Portable Assembly
Date 2017-05-29 11:00 +0200
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <oggnog$e4f$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References <ogckfb$qcb$1@dont-email.me> <ogcq6o$cf0$1@dont-email.me> <ogcr17$ft7$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 27/05/17 23:31, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 28.5.2017 г. 00:17, Les Cargill wrote:
>> rickman wrote:
>>> Someone in another group is thinking of using a portable assembler
>>> to write code for an app that would be ported to a number of
>>> different embedded processors including custom processors in FPGAs.
>>> I'm wondering how useful this will be in writing code that will
>>> require few changes across CPU ISAs and manufacturers.
>>>
>>> I am aware that there are many aspects of porting between CPUs that
>>> is assembly language independent, like writing to Flash memory.  I'm
>>> more interested in the issues involved in trying to use a universal
>>> assembler to write portable code in general.  I'm wondering if it
>>> restricts the instructions you can use or if it works more like a
>>> compiler where a single instruction translates to multiple target
>>> instructions when there is no one instruction suitable.
>>>
>>> Or do I misunderstand how a portable assembler works?  Does it
>>> require a specific assembly language source format for each target
>>> just like using the standard assembler for the target?
>>>
>>
>> That's what C is for.
> 
> Or Basic. Or Fortran etc.

Exactly - you use a programming language appropriate for the job.  For
most low-level work, that is C (or perhaps C++, if you /really/ know
what you are doing).  Some parts of your code will be target-specific C,
some parts will be portable C.  And a few tiny bits will be assembly or
"intrinsic functions" that are assembly made to look like C functions.

Most of the assembly used will actually be written by the toolchain
provider (startup code, library code, etc.) - and if you are using a
half-decent processor, this would almost certainly have been better
written in C than assembly.

C is /not/ a "portable assembly" - it means you don't /need/ a portable
assembly.

> 
> However, they are by far not what a "portable assembler" - existing
> under the name Virtual Processor Assembler in our house is.

No, it is not a "portable assembler".  It is just a translator to
generate PPC assembly from 68K assembly, because you had invested so
much time and code in 68K assembly and wanted to avoid re-writing
everything for the PPC.  That's a reasonable enough business strategy,
and an alternative to writing an emulator for the 68K on the PPC, or
some sort of re-compiler.

But it is not a "portable assembler".  If you can take code written in
your VPA and translate it into PIC, 8051, msp430, ARM, and x86 assembly,
in a way that gives near-optimal efficiency on each target, while
letting you write your VPA code knowing exactly which instructions will
be generated on the target, /then/ you would have a portable assembler.
 But such a language cannot be made, for obvious reasons.

What you have is a two-target sort-of assembler that gives you
reasonable code on two different targets.  You could also say that you
have your own personal low-level programming language with compiler
backends for two different targets.  Again, that's fair enough - and if
it lets you write the code you want, great.  But it is not a portable
assembly.


> And never will be, like any high level language C is yet another
> phrase book - convenient when you need to do a quick interaction
> when you don't speak the language - and only then.

Spoken like a true fanatic (or salesman).

> 
>>
>> This being said, I've been doing this for
>> 37 years and have only a few times seen an actual need for
>> portability - usually, the new hardware is so radically
>> different that porting makes little sense.
>>
> 
> The need for portability arises when you have megabytes of
> sources which are good and need to be moved to another, better
> platform. For smallish projects - anything which would fit in
> an MCU flash - porting is likely a waste of time, rewriting it
> for the new target will be faster if done by the same person
> who has already done it once.
>

Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Portable Assembly rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-27 15:39 -0400
  Re: Portable Assembly Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-27 21:05 +0000
    Re: Portable Assembly Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2017-05-27 21:29 +0000
    Re: Portable Assembly upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-05-28 00:36 +0300
      Re: Portable Assembly Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-27 21:56 +0000
        Re: Portable Assembly Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2017-05-28 14:36 +0200
      Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-29 09:53 +0200
  Re: Portable Assembly Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-05-27 16:17 -0500
    Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-28 00:31 +0300
      Re: Portable Assembly Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2017-05-27 22:52 +0100
        Re: Portable Assembly Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-27 21:58 +0000
          Re: Portable Assembly upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-05-28 07:37 +0300
            Re: Portable Assembly rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 01:28 -0400
            Re: Portable Assembly Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-28 07:33 +0100
              Re: Portable Assembly rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 03:22 -0400
                Re: Portable Assembly Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-28 08:49 +0100
                Re: Portable Assembly upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-05-28 15:03 +0300
          Re: Portable Assembly Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-05-28 12:26 +0300
        Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-28 01:04 +0300
        Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-29 10:43 +0200
          Re: Portable Assembly Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2017-05-31 10:19 +0300
            Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-31 01:49 -0700
            Re: Portable Assembly Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-05-31 15:56 +0300
        Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-29 02:33 -0700
          Re: Portable Assembly upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-05-29 23:46 +0300
            Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-29 13:54 -0700
      Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-27 15:52 -0700
        Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-28 02:14 +0300
          Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-27 17:14 -0700
            Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-28 03:38 +0300
              Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-27 18:42 -0700
      Re: Portable Assembly Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2017-05-28 18:45 +0200
        Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-28 20:47 +0300
          Re: Portable Assembly Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2017-05-29 18:43 +0200
            Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-29 10:23 -0700
            Re: Portable Assembly "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2017-05-30 16:31 +0200
        Re: Portable Assembly Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-29 01:59 +0000
          Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-29 05:21 +0300
      Re: Portable Assembly Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-05-28 22:04 -0500
        Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-29 02:57 -0700
      Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-29 11:00 +0200
        Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-29 15:08 +0300
          Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-29 15:06 +0200
            Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-29 20:02 +0300
              Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-29 23:13 +0200
                Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-30 16:53 +0300
                Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-31 11:36 +0200
                Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-06-01 22:43 +0300
                Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-02 13:27 +0200
          Re: Portable Assembly Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-29 13:48 +0000
    Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-27 15:46 -0700
    Re: Portable Assembly Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-28 23:59 -0500
  Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-05-28 00:23 +0300
  Re: Portable Assembly jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2017-05-27 16:54 -0700
  Re: Portable Assembly Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2017-05-29 17:23 -0400
  Re: Portable Assembly "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2017-06-02 17:03 +0200
    Re: Portable Assembly Mike Perkins <spam@spam.com> - 2017-06-05 15:39 +0100
      Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-05 18:10 +0200
      Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-05 09:10 -0700
        Re: Portable Assembly George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-06-06 00:24 -0400
          Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-06 11:05 +0200
          Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-06 07:03 -0700
            Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-06 16:58 +0200
              Re: Portable Assembly Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-06-06 21:26 +0300
            Re: Portable Assembly George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-06-06 16:42 -0400
              Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-06 23:16 -0700
                Re: Portable Assembly George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-06-08 06:38 -0400
                Re: Portable Assembly Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-06-08 15:58 +0300
                Re: Portable Assembly upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-06-08 21:34 +0300
                Re: Portable Assembly Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-06-10 15:27 -0500
                Re: Portable Assembly Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-06-10 15:23 -0500
                Re: Portable Assembly Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-06-08 14:50 +0100
                Re: Portable Assembly Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-06-08 17:38 +0300
                Re: Portable Assembly Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-06-08 16:37 +0100
                Re: Portable Assembly George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-06-09 14:14 -0400
                Re: Portable Assembly Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-06-09 22:25 +0100
                Re: Portable Assembly Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-06-10 09:54 +1000
                Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-09 00:06 -0700
                Re: Portable Assembly George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-06-09 22:14 -0400
                Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-09 22:50 -0700
                Re: Portable Assembly George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-06-10 21:01 -0400
                Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-11 00:39 -0700
                Re: Portable Assembly George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-06-12 23:27 -0400
                Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-12 22:42 -0700
                Re: Portable Assembly Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 14:24 -0700
                Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-13 21:57 -0700
                Re: Portable Assembly Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-06-14 13:26 +0800
                Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-13 23:58 -0700
                Re: Portable Assembly Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 06:48 -0700
                Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-19 16:45 -0700
                Re: Portable Assembly Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 15:07 -0700
                Re: Portable Assembly Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-06-21 07:37 -0700
              Re: Portable Assembly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-07 09:20 +0200
          Re: Portable Assembly Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2017-06-07 00:30 +0300
            Re: Portable Assembly George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2017-06-07 02:02 -0400

csiph-web