A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How many x86 instructions?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 23rd 14, 11:15 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.windows7.general
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,698
Default How many x86 instructions?

On 2/23/2014 4:41 PM, charlie wrote:
The front panel on many of the old mainframes and minicomputers allowed
direct entry of machine code, and was usually used to manually enter
such things as a "bootstrap", or loader program.


The way I recall is any computer only understands machine code and
nothing else. Anything else must be converted to machine at some point.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8 Pro w/Media Center
  #22  
Old February 23rd 14, 11:45 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.windows7.general
Gene E. Bloch[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default How many x86 instructions?

On 2/23/2014, J. P. Gilliver (John) posted:
In message , charlie
writes:
[]
At the time, the only out we had in order to meet contract
requirements was to write a combination of assembly code, compiled
code, and horrors,
machine code. If that wasn't bad enough, we then had to
"disassemble"
the machine code to see if there was a way to duplicate it at the
highest level possible, without writing compiler extensions.


What's machine code (as opposed to assembly code) in this context?
How did you write it?


This might help:

When I owned an Apple ][, for a long time I din't own an assembler
program. I wrote some code in hex...

Let me tell you, "a small change" was a complete oxymoron.

"Machine code" means the actual bits or bytes that go into memory.
"Assembly code" is a *symbolic* language. Assembly language code, for
various reasons, might not even be a perfect 1 to 1 match to what goes
into the machine.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
  #23  
Old February 23rd 14, 11:49 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.windows7.general
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,698
Default How many x86 instructions?

On 2/23/2014 5:45 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On 2/23/2014, J. P. Gilliver (John) posted:
In message , charlie
writes:
[]
At the time, the only out we had in order to meet contract
requirements was to write a combination of assembly code, compiled
code, and horrors,
machine code. If that wasn't bad enough, we then had to "disassemble"
the machine code to see if there was a way to duplicate it at the
highest level possible, without writing compiler extensions.


What's machine code (as opposed to assembly code) in this context? How
did you write it?


This might help:

When I owned an Apple ][, for a long time I din't own an assembler
program. I wrote some code in hex...

Let me tell you, "a small change" was a complete oxymoron.

"Machine code" means the actual bits or bytes that go into memory.
"Assembly code" is a *symbolic* language. Assembly language code, for
various reasons, might not even be a perfect 1 to 1 match to what goes
into the machine.


+1

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8 Pro w/Media Center
  #24  
Old February 24th 14, 12:30 AM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.windows7.general
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,296
Default How many x86 instructions?

On 23/02/2014 6:15 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 2/23/2014 4:41 PM, charlie wrote:
The front panel on many of the old mainframes and minicomputers allowed
direct entry of machine code, and was usually used to manually enter
such things as a "bootstrap", or loader program.


The way I recall is any computer only understands machine code and
nothing else. Anything else must be converted to machine at some point.


I know what Charlie is talking about. When he talks about directly
entering machine code, it means typing in the binary codes directly,
even without niceness of an assembler to translate it partially into
English readable. This would be entering numbers into memory directly,
like 0x2C, 0x01, 0xFB, etc., etc.

Yousuf Khan
  #25  
Old February 24th 14, 12:34 AM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.windows7.general
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default How many x86 instructions?

On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 17:15:24 -0600, BillW50 wrote:

On 2/23/2014 4:41 PM, charlie wrote:
The front panel on many of the old mainframes and minicomputers allowed
direct entry of machine code, and was usually used to manually enter
such things as a "bootstrap", or loader program.


The way I recall is any computer only understands machine code and
nothing else. Anything else must be converted to machine at some point.


That sorta the meaning of the word "machine" in "machine code". ;-)

The issue is how the programs are stored, in the mean time. If the
machine code is never "seen" in the wild, it's an interpreter. If the
machine code is stored somewhere it's either "assembled" or
"compiled". The major difference being that an "assembled" program
has a 1:1 correspondence to its machine code, a "compiled" program
will not. Of course a "macro" assembler confuses this point some.

  #26  
Old February 24th 14, 04:21 AM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.windows7.general
Jason[_13_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default How many x86 instructions?

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:23:01 +0000 (UTC) "Robert Redelmeier"
wrote in article le7ng5$jfq$

Hate to break it to you, but you are behind the times. Compilers
are passe' -- "modern" systems use interpreters like JIT Java.

How else you you think Android gets Apps to run on the dogs-breakfast
of ARM processors out there? It is [nearly] all interpreted Java.
So much so that Dell can get 'roid Apps to run on its x86 tablet!
(AFAIK, iOS still runs compiled Apps prob'cuz Apple _hatez_ Oracle)


-- Robert


Compilers are NOT passe'

The performance penalty for interpreted languages is a large factor. It's
fine in many situations - scripting languages and the like - and the
modern processors are fast enough to make the performance hit tolerable.
Large-scale applications are still compiled and heavily optimized. Time
is money.

  #27  
Old February 24th 14, 09:42 AM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.windows7.general
charlie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default How many x86 instructions?

machine code is stored somewhere it's either "assembled" or
"compiled".


There's more! A "Loader" can take a binary type file and add it to
memory. If the loader has a system level "map" of memory usage, and
resident code entries and exits, it can load the code at a relative or
absolute memory location, and inform the system level software where it
is. Or it might do a "load and go" so that when the loader is finished,
the processor goes to and starts executing at an address provided by the
loader. A system might tell the loader where in memory to put the code.
A programmer's nightmare is intermixed code and data, with self
modifying code added, just for giggles! Some compilers/assemblers used
to generate machine code had/have detectable signatures tracing back to
the particular development software that was used. This allowed authors
to check to see if they were being properly paid for use of their
development software. (Freeware or student development software, pay for
commercial use) I'd suggest that you don't consider use of "student" or
"educational" development software to develop a commercial program!


On 2/23/2014 7:34 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 17:15:24 -0600, BillW50 wrote:

On 2/23/2014 4:41 PM, charlie wrote:
The front panel on many of the old mainframes and minicomputers allowed
direct entry of machine code, and was usually used to manually enter
such things as a "bootstrap", or loader program.


The way I recall is any computer only understands machine code and
nothing else. Anything else must be converted to machine at some point.


That sorta the meaning of the word "machine" in "machine code". ;-)

The issue is how the programs are stored, in the mean time. If the
machine code is never "seen" in the wild, it's an interpreter. If the
machine code is stored somewhere it's either "assembled" or
"compiled". The major difference being that an "assembled" program
has a 1:1 correspondence to its machine code, a "compiled" program
will not. Of course a "macro" assembler confuses this point some.


  #28  
Old February 24th 14, 06:02 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.windows7.general
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default How many x86 instructions?

On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 23:21:52 -0500, Jason
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:23:01 +0000 (UTC) "Robert Redelmeier"
wrote in article le7ng5$jfq$

Hate to break it to you, but you are behind the times. Compilers
are passe' -- "modern" systems use interpreters like JIT Java.

How else you you think Android gets Apps to run on the dogs-breakfast
of ARM processors out there? It is [nearly] all interpreted Java.
So much so that Dell can get 'roid Apps to run on its x86 tablet!
(AFAIK, iOS still runs compiled Apps prob'cuz Apple _hatez_ Oracle)


-- Robert


Compilers are NOT passe'

The performance penalty for interpreted languages is a large factor. It's
fine in many situations - scripting languages and the like - and the
modern processors are fast enough to make the performance hit tolerable.
Large-scale applications are still compiled and heavily optimized. Time
is money.


Time may be money but transistors are free. ;-)
  #29  
Old February 24th 14, 06:38 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.windows7.general
Jason[_13_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default How many x86 instructions?

On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:02:02 -0500 " wrote
in article

On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 23:21:52 -0500, Jason
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:23:01 +0000 (UTC) "Robert Redelmeier"
wrote in article le7ng5$jfq$

Hate to break it to you, but you are behind the times. Compilers
are passe' -- "modern" systems use interpreters like JIT Java.

How else you you think Android gets Apps to run on the dogs-breakfast
of ARM processors out there? It is [nearly] all interpreted Java.
So much so that Dell can get 'roid Apps to run on its x86 tablet!
(AFAIK, iOS still runs compiled Apps prob'cuz Apple _hatez_ Oracle)


-- Robert


Compilers are NOT passe'

The performance penalty for interpreted languages is a large factor. It's
fine in many situations - scripting languages and the like - and the
modern processors are fast enough to make the performance hit tolerable.
Large-scale applications are still compiled and heavily optimized. Time
is money.


Time may be money but transistors are free. ;-)


Well, not exactly free. Visit a National Lab sometime to get an idea of
the magnitude of the expenditures for "free" transistors. I've been
there. Those people do everything to wring out every droplet of
performance that they can, even on petaflops machines.


  #30  
Old February 24th 14, 07:09 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.windows7.general
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default How many x86 instructions?

On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:38:40 -0500, Jason
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:02:02 -0500 " wrote
in article

On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 23:21:52 -0500, Jason
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:23:01 +0000 (UTC) "Robert Redelmeier"
wrote in article le7ng5$jfq$

Hate to break it to you, but you are behind the times. Compilers
are passe' -- "modern" systems use interpreters like JIT Java.

How else you you think Android gets Apps to run on the dogs-breakfast
of ARM processors out there? It is [nearly] all interpreted Java.
So much so that Dell can get 'roid Apps to run on its x86 tablet!
(AFAIK, iOS still runs compiled Apps prob'cuz Apple _hatez_ Oracle)


-- Robert

Compilers are NOT passe'

The performance penalty for interpreted languages is a large factor. It's
fine in many situations - scripting languages and the like - and the
modern processors are fast enough to make the performance hit tolerable.
Large-scale applications are still compiled and heavily optimized. Time
is money.


Time may be money but transistors are free. ;-)


Well, not exactly free. Visit a National Lab sometime to get an idea of
the magnitude of the expenditures for "free" transistors. I've been
there. Those people do everything to wring out every droplet of
performance that they can, even on petaflops machines.

Now, divide that expenditure by the number manufactured. I worked in
high-end microprocessor design for seven or eight years. Transistors
are indeed treated as free, and getting cheaper every year. If you
look at how programmers write, they think they're free, too. ;-)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
refill instructions for hp 4v panxerox Printers 0 February 18th 07 07:25 PM
Instructions SSE bruno Overclocking AMD Processors 1 May 10th 06 05:10 AM
Instructions - terrible Travis King AMD x86-64 Processors 3 January 8th 05 03:04 PM
REP instructions and TLB caching John Marcus Intel 1 October 22nd 04 06:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.