System Programming Resources for Alpha Architecture - DEC

This is a discussion on System Programming Resources for Alpha Architecture - DEC ; On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:23:32 -0700, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Tom Linden wrote: > >> Fair enough, however, unless you are doing absolute address programming >> it >> doesn't >> make too much ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: System Programming Resources for Alpha Architecture

  1. Re: System Programming Resources for Alpha Architecture

    On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:23:32 -0700, Maciej W. Rozycki
    wrote:

    > On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Tom Linden wrote:
    >
    >> Fair enough, however, unless you are doing absolute address programming
    >> it
    >> doesn't
    >> make too much sense since the techniques and tools on VMS are very
    >> different
    >> from
    >> that on Tru64 or Linux. At the assembler level you could share
    >> techniques I
    >> suppose,
    >> but then why would anyone want to use an assembly language.

    >
    > Because they are working on the operating system itself for example --
    > as
    > it was mentioned in this thread a couple of times? Not everything can be
    > done in a high-level language, no matter how moderately it was.
    >


    I respectfully disagree, I have done it, and so has IBM and many other
    companies
    It does require some extensions to the language, but this is far superior
    than
    having to code in assembly or C.

    > Maciej




    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  2. Re: System Programming Resources for Alpha Architecture

    Tom Linden schrieb:

    >
    > I respectfully disagree, I have done it, and so has IBM and many other
    > companies


    and how many of them have survived ?
    The fact that it is doable does not guarantee
    that it is practical or economically viable.
    The most successful OSs these days,
    Windoze and the *ix family are coded in
    a mixture of C and assembly, AFAIK.

    > It does require some extensions to the language, but this is far
    > superior than
    > having to code in assembly or C.


    Probably not. See above.


  3. Re: System Programming Resources for Alpha Architecture

    On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:46:37 -0700, Michael Kraemer
    wrote:

    > Tom Linden schrieb:
    >
    >> I respectfully disagree, I have done it, and so has IBM and many
    >> other companies

    >
    > and how many of them have survived ?
    > The fact that it is doable does not guarantee
    > that it is practical or economically viable.
    > The most successful OSs these days,
    > Windoze and the *ix family are coded in
    > a mixture of C and assembly, AFAIK.


    That is correct, I guess only IBM's OS's are in higher level,
    these days, z/os in PL/S and HAL, AIX in PL.8 and C and AS400 in ?

    >
    >> It does require some extensions to the language, but this is far
    >> superior than
    >> having to code in assembly or C.

    >
    > Probably not. See above.


    What I meant by that was the cost to develop and to maintain is
    much lower.

    >




    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  4. Re: System Programming Resources for Alpha Architecture

    Bob Koehler wrote:
    > In article , "Tom Linden" writes:
    >> I respectfully disagree, I have done it, and so has IBM and many other
    >> companies
    >> It does require some extensions to the language, but this is far superior
    >> than
    >> having to code in assembly or C.
    >>

    >
    > Poor fools, obviously should have been writing in BLIS.
    >


    Did you mean BLISS?

  5. Re: System Programming Resources for Alpha Architecture

    In article , "Tom Linden" writes:
    >
    > I respectfully disagree, I have done it, and so has IBM and many other
    > companies
    > It does require some extensions to the language, but this is far superior
    > than
    > having to code in assembly or C.
    >


    Poor fools, obviously should have been writing in BLIS.


  6. Re: System Programming Resources for Alpha Architecture

    On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Tom Linden wrote:

    > > Because they are working on the operating system itself for example -- as
    > > it was mentioned in this thread a couple of times? Not everything can be
    > > done in a high-level language, no matter how moderately it was.
    > >

    >
    > I respectfully disagree, I have done it, and so has IBM and many other
    > companies
    > It does require some extensions to the language, but this is far superior than
    > having to code in assembly or C.


    In most cases it is unavoidable to use the assembly language in places
    that do not conform to any kind of ABI, like non-maskable interrupt or
    exception handlers where frequently most of the processor general
    registers have to be preserved and are thus unusable for the compiler;
    also the access to some privileged resources (e.g. the cache or the TLB)
    may require hardware instructions that are not emitted from any kind of
    higher-level language.

    Though obviously a lot depends on the exact architecture of the CPU --
    certainly with processors I dealt with so far it was completely unfeasible
    to design a dedicated high-level language for the sole purpose of avoiding
    the three or four assembly-language source files in the whole port of a
    kernel for a given architecture, worth a couple of hundred processor
    instructions each at the very most.

    Anyway, you do want to know details of the architecture when porting an
    OS regardless of how many lines of assembly code you will have to write if
    any.

    Maciej

  7. Re: System Programming Resources for Alpha Architecture

    Michael Kraemer wrote:
    > Tom Linden schrieb:
    >> I respectfully disagree, I have done it, and so has IBM and many
    >> other companies

    >
    > and how many of them have survived ?
    > The fact that it is doable does not guarantee
    > that it is practical or economically viable.
    > The most successful OSs these days,
    > Windoze and the *ix family are coded in
    > a mixture of C and assembly, AFAIK.


    Sometimes it is difficult to precise define what is OS and
    what is apps. If you choose a broad definition of OS for
    Windows, then there are a lot of C++ stuff as well.

    >> It does require some extensions to the language, but this is far
    >> superior than
    >> having to code in assembly or C.

    >
    > Probably not. See above.


    It could be. I am not convinced that maintainability of the code
    is the most important factor for an OS's success.

    Arne

  8. Re: System Programming Resources for Alpha Architecture

    Arne Vajh°j wrote:

    > No - developers are (or should be) paid to produce readable and
    > maintainable code - not to demonstrate their wizard capabilities.


    In what universe/century do you live in ?

    When you look at web developpers, it is very clear that they are paid to
    demonstrate their capabilities to use every possible overly complex
    trick to simulate a very simple HTML functions (such as the submit
    button that is all to often overriden by some complex javascript).

  9. Re: System Programming Resources for Alpha Architecture

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > Arne Vajh°j wrote:
    >> No - developers are (or should be) paid to produce readable and
    >> maintainable code - not to demonstrate their wizard capabilities.

    >
    > In what universe/century do you live in ?
    >
    > When you look at web developpers, it is very clear that they are paid to
    > demonstrate their capabilities to use every possible overly complex
    > trick to simulate a very simple HTML functions (such as the submit
    > button that is all to often overriden by some complex javascript).


    If they run JavaScript at submit for no good reason, then they
    are no doing their job.

    But in the AJAX world it often makes sense to run JavaScript at
    submit.

    Arne

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2