[TI-H] Re: Hardware


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

[TI-H] Re: Hardware




but remember the instruction order in the cpu itself is to, from on intel
cpu's.

[inst.][to][from]

--nick

-----Original Message-----
From: ti-hardware-bounce@lists.ticalc.org
[mailto:ti-hardware-bounce@lists.ticalc.org]On Behalf Of Olle
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 5:14 AM
To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: [TI-H] Re: Hardware


From: "docydoc" <docydoc@gmx.net>
> I wrote "maybe" not "for sure". Every CPU has it's advantages and
> disadvantages no doubt about it.
> Some people swear on CISC some on RISC, some on superscalar architecture
and
> so on but...
> Hmmm no need to explain further. Everybody has it's favorite!

ofcourse. I just think the syntax-argument is kindof a stupid one. It hasn't
really anything to do with the processor. (except that the makers have
specified one syntax, but noone is really forced to use it. It's easier to
use because you can use the makers docs more easily though.)
If its cisc or risc or so on is a much better argument for what you like.
(Personally I don't have any clear favorites. 8bit processors are cool
though, because of their simplicity. :) And RISCs are cool too, because they
feel very intelligently built. some CISCs can be cool to, like late pentiums
that has vector-like instructions. everything depends on what you need it
for.)

> btw: Why the [to],[from] directive in the assemblers is so common for the
> Intel CPUs?
> Isn't it logical to use [from],[to] like I go from source to destination
of my
> trip or whereever?

I think both ways are kind of logical. the [from],[to], is as you say, for
people in the west, who read from the left to the right a bit logical, "take
this, move it here".
[to],[from] is also equally logical. think of how you write C for example.

variable = 42;

that is clear [to],[from]  syntax!
"this here, should have the value of this".
Just different ways to think, neither more or less logical then the other.

///Olle







Follow-Ups: References: