From: Felipe Magno de Almeida (felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-05 18:36:28
On 10/5/07, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> on Fri Oct 05 2007, "Ray Lambert" <codemonkey-AT-interthingy.net> wrote:
> > David Abrahams wrote:
> >> on Thu Oct 04 2007, Ray Lambert <codemonkey-AT-interthingy.net> wrote:
> >> The task of representing low-level instruction streams. Some
> >> assemblers have sprouted sophisticated macro systems and other
> >> high-level constructs (sort of like some makes have sprouted
> >> complicated features), but somehow compilers just seem to generate
> >> fairly straightforward, low-level asm code.
> > Compilers do that because there IS NOTHING ELSE at that level.
> Totally false: http://www.bixoft.nl/english/course6.htm
Even if assemblers have macro systems, I wouldn't say assembly has it.
As far as I know, assembly is just a textual representation of machine
code. Those macro systems are just extensions, the same way C++
compilers offer extensions.
> >> Assembly and machine code are very different.
And that's why I can't agree with this too.
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
-- Felipe Magno de Almeida
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk