NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
in [ASM]
|
Prev: announce: my very first disassembler now available (GPL)
Next: Win32 non blocking console input?
From: NathanCBaker on 21 Sep 2008 19:32 On Sep 9, 11:35 pm, Chuck Crayne <ccra...(a)crayne.org> wrote: > On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 22:29:08 -0700 (PDT) > > NathanCBa...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > Could I trouble you for an instruction list (w/opcodes)? > > Because it was an unannounced product, the design documentation wasn't > allowed to leave the building, and by the time the machine was > brought to market, I was working for IBM. So I have no instruction list > to share with you. > > However, I can give you some background information. The Century series > (codenamed the "615") was NCR's response to the IBM 360 family. In > particular, the 615-100 was designed to compete with the 360/30. So, > its architecture was similar to IBM's. > > However, it was not a clone. It was byte addressable, which was a major > change from the previous NCR architecture, which used 12-bit "slabs", > each of which could contain either two 6-bit characters, or three 4-bit > binary coded digits. But, in the new byte architecture, NCR decided to > use ASCII character encoding, instead of IBM's EBCDIC. > Satisfies my curiosity. Thank you. Nathan.
From: H. Peter Anvin on 22 Sep 2008 00:26 NathanCBaker(a)gmail.com wrote: > ... > The NEAT/3 language is a much lower-level language; basically it is > an assembly language for the NCR Century computers that provide COBOL- > style data declarations. Most of its "instructions" translate one-for- > one into Century machine instructions, though it does automatically > insert code to convert data types from one format two another if the > data types of an instruction's operands are incompatible. > `--- > > Hmm... converting data types "on the fly" so to speak. Smacks of > "dynamic typing" to me. Wouldn't that make NEAT/3 "higher level" than > HLA?? IIRC, a certain someone in this NG once accused Randy of > "having his head in the high-level language world." :) > No, this is "weak typing". Strong versus weak typing is techically orthogonal to static versus dynamic typing, although the combination strong and dynamic typing is somewhat unusual. Strong versus weak typing is whether or not types are strictly enforced, or attempted to be coerced into a more appropriate type automatically. Static versus dynamic typing is whether the types are determined at compile time or runtime. -hpa
From: Nathan Baker on 22 Sep 2008 01:06
H. Peter Anvin wrote: > NathanCBaker(a)gmail.com wrote: >> ... >> The NEAT/3 language is a much lower-level language; basically it is >> an assembly language for the NCR Century computers that provide COBOL- >> style data declarations. Most of its "instructions" translate one-for- >> one into Century machine instructions, though it does automatically >> insert code to convert data types from one format two another if the >> data types of an instruction's operands are incompatible. >> `--- >> >> Hmm... converting data types "on the fly" so to speak. Smacks of >> "dynamic typing" to me. Wouldn't that make NEAT/3 "higher level" than >> HLA?? IIRC, a certain someone in this NG once accused Randy of >> "having his head in the high-level language world." :) >> > > No, this is "weak typing". Strong versus weak typing is techically > orthogonal to static versus dynamic typing, Ah, yes -- I keep getting those terms confused. Attempting a "weak ribbing" of Chuck was a long stretch anyway -- he provides little "material" to work with. :) > although the combination > strong and dynamic typing is somewhat unusual. Actually, I believe it is becoming somewhat more common. Modern implementations of the Basic language (Python, Ruby, for example) support dynamic typing and the rules are definitely enforced. One must resort to casting (actually a method call) to access a variable's content as a different type. Also, things like Neko VM blur the issue even more. Nathan. |