Asmxygen
Websvn
Builds
Bugs
FTP
Wiki
Telegram
Discord
RedditMachine code
-
Would KolibriOS be more efficient if it was written in machine code instead of assembler?
You're wrong - Kolibri should be written in microcode embedded CPU.
Any assembly language is actually a mnemonic presentation of CPU machine codes.Jake wrote:Would KolibriOS be more efficient if it was written in machine code instead of assembler?
(Plus some extra features to simplify and accelerate the s/w development).
But your question is not absolutely absurd
- apart of CPU, there exist less sophisticated programmable devices inside PC those require hell of programming of their own microcontrollers in bare machine code.
KolibriOS yet needs this work to be done to utilise 100% of the hardware resources, and to run even faster.
Would Kolibri be more efficient if it is written in microcode, instead of machine code or assembler? Is there anything more basic than microcode?Mario wrote:You're wrong - Kolibri should be written in microcode embedded CPU.
Are you talking about microcode here?art_zh wrote:- apart of CPU, there exist less sophisticated programmable devices inside PC those require hell of programming of their own microcontrollers in bare machine code.
KolibriOS yet needs this work to be done to utilise 100% of the hardware resources, and to run even faster.
We're probably talking in different terms.
Would you please tell us what microcode do you talk about and why it should be faster than the CPU code?
Would you please tell us what microcode do you talk about and why it should be faster than the CPU code?
Of course there is! Weak interactions of quarks satisfy you?Jake wrote:Would Kolibri be more efficient if it is written in microcode, instead of machine code or assembler? Is there anything more basic than microcode?Mario wrote:You're wrong - Kolibri should be written in microcode embedded CPU.
Mario (above) mentioned "microcode" which is a term I had never heard of until today! I looked up what microcode means on Wikipedia. From what I understand it is more basic than machine code.art_zh wrote:We're probably talking in different terms.
Would you please tell us the what microcode do you mean and its difference of the CPU code?
I thought maybe you and Mario were talking about the same principle?Wikipedia wrote:In some computer architectures, the machine code is implemented by a more fundamental underlying layer of programs called microprograms, providing a common machine language interface across a line or family of different models of computer with widely different underlying dataflows. This is done to facilitate porting of machine language programs between different models. An example of this use is the IBM System/360 family of computers and their successors. With dataflow path widths of 8 bits to 64 bits and beyond, they nevertheless present a common architecture at the machine language level across the entire line.
Using a microcode layer to implement an emulator enables the computer to present the architecture of an entirely different computer. The System/360 line used this to allow porting programs from earlier IBM machines to the new family of computers, e.g. an IBM 1401/1440/1460 emulator on the IBM S/360 model 40.
Are you saying that "weak interaction of quarks" is a layer of hardware-level instructions and/or data structures, like machine code and microcode?Mario wrote:Of course there is! Weak interactions of quarks satisfy you?Jake wrote:Would Kolibri be more efficient if it is written in microcode, instead of machine code or assembler? Is there anything more basic than microcode?Mario wrote:You're wrong - Kolibri should be written in microcode embedded CPU.
x86 has a solid microcode = machine code = physical realization of assembly instructions.
What Mario said was his favorite way of doing conversations
Don't panic, he is not as terrible as he might appear when you know him better
What Mario said was his favorite way of doing conversations
Don't panic, he is not as terrible as he might appear when you know him better
Obviously you can tell I don't know much about computers, but I find Kolibri fascinating! I want to learn about it and possibly better alternatives. Yes I don't like the way Mario speaks to me but I guess he is just playing with meart_zh wrote:x86 has a solid microcode = machine code = physical realization of assembly instructions.
What Mario said was his favorite way of doing conversations
Don't panic, he is not as terrible as he might appear when you know him better
.So when Mario says "Kolibri should be written in microcode embedded CPU" is that what Kolibri already does?
Would "microcode embedded CPU" (as Mario puts it) be the solution to what you say here:
Is Mario being informative or is he misleading me?? I have come here to learn rather than be confused.art_zh wrote:apart of CPU, there exist less sophisticated programmable devices inside PC those require hell of programming of their own microcontrollers in bare machine code.
I came across the term "Microassembler".Mario wrote:You're wrong - Kolibri should be written in microcode embedded CPU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microassembler
If Kolibri was written in microcode embedded CPU, would it be more efficient with or without the use of a microassembler?
As for the microcode processor and later - it was a joke. 
Assembler actually created that programmers are not obsessed with programming directly to binary code. The end result is that a binary code that the assembler is almost identical, but the assembler greatly simplifies the development.
Assembler actually created that programmers are not obsessed with programming directly to binary code. The end result is that a binary code that the assembler is almost identical, but the assembler greatly simplifies the development.
I don't like to explain other peoples' jokes, but that one Mario said was really funnyJake wrote:I came across the term "Microassembler".Mario wrote:You're wrong - Kolibri should be written in microcode embedded CPU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microassembler
If Kolibri was written in microcode embedded CPU, would it be more efficient with or without the use of a microassembler?
An embedded CPU is a quiet and slow beast that controls your camera or mobile phone. Such a simple thing has a simpler set of commands, and the programs it runs are also (usually) much shorter. People sometimes call such embedded software "microcode" to stress its limited functionality and speed.
A monster inside your PC is different. He wants it all, and now - no compromise. All the other hardware only serves its huge appetites, and does it more or less satisfactory - never fast enough.
Separate topic Машинный код
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests