Differences between version 8 and revision by previous author of AssemblyLanguage.
Other diffs: Previous Major Revision, Previous Revision, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 8 | Last edited on Thursday, July 1, 2004 7:35:42 am | by RuudSchramp | Revert |
| Older page: | version 7 | Last edited on Sunday, October 26, 2003 8:36:14 am | by AristotlePagaltzis | Revert |
@@ -63,9 +63,11 @@
As you can see, explaining what AssemblyLanguage code is doing line-by-line is tediously boring. This is how programmers used to write code, and it is a common fact that AssemblyLanguage programmers get paid more per line of code than those who hack away in higher level languages.
We can also note that it is extremely bad for your health to rely on the gcc(1) output of some [C] code when learning [x86] AssemblyLanguage. gcc(1) generates extremely horrid code on occassion, especially when working with multiplication and division because [x86] multiplication and division instructions are restricted in the registers they can use.
+
+As stated learning AssemblyLanguage by inspecting the output of gcc is hardly sensible. Inspecting the generated instructions when optimising [C] code is quite usefull. Especialy when mixing different sizes of integers (char, int long) the code can be flooded with unexpected typecasting instructions which are not so visible in the [C] code. These instructions are quite obvious in the AssemblyLanguage (lots of __and__ instructions and often additional __mov__).
Another sample piece of [AssemblyLanguage] code for [Linux] can be found in the [HelloWorld] page.
----
CategoryProgrammingLanguages
