3 ms·

Learn ARM or some other RISC architecture and not x86/amd64 if you want to learn assembly. x86 and its forever backwards compatable Segmented Memory/CISC archit

Learn ARM or some other RISC architecture and not x86/amd64 if you want to learn assembly. x86 and its forever backwards compatable Segmented Memory/CISC architecture makes asm programming painful (not to mention I have learned at least three different syntaxes for x86 asm : (1) MASM/BASM/TASM/NASM, (2) GNU AS (gas), (3) Amsterdam Compiler Kit -- the last two are meant for compiler backends and not human programmers). I actually cut my teeth on TI's TMS34010 asm. Simple RISC (lot's of registers), flat address space, and bit addressable. I loved it.

kqr 9y ago
I can recommend MIPS assembly. It has been the only assembly I've used that actually felt like it was intended for human consumption.
- userbinator 9y ago
  My experience with MIPS is the complete opposite --- simple things like loading a single constant into a register require two instructions, and the lack of addressing modes is also a bit annoying. Breaking dords into bytes and vice-versa involves long sequences of shifts and logical operations, the branch delay slot is confusing to say the least, and the plentiful-yet-unhelpfully-named registers don't really make things any easier. At least ARM's conditional execution and barrel shifter are more interesting and versatile. Then again, I admittedly learned 8080 and then Z80 and x86 first, so any RISC feels too simple; but those who learned any RISC first probably feel the exact opposite.
  - nbsd4lyfe 9y ago
    > Breaking dords into bytes and vice-versa involves long sequences of shifts and logical operations modern MIPS has "ext" and "ins", which are probably an improvement in that regard. > plentiful-yet-unhelpfully-named registers what's wrong with MIPS register names? my only comparison is x86 and that has been awful. I'm constantly looking up which registers are what.
    - userbinator 9y ago
      what's wrong with MIPS register names? They're not really names, just "addresses" of a different form --- and of course, 0 is not really a register. x86 register names are supposed to be mnemonic, because certain instructions are only usable with, or have shorter forms when used with, the "right" register: Accumulator, Count, Base, Data/Divide, Stack Pointer, Base Pointer, Source Index, Destination Index.
      - crankybear1337 9y ago
        Those explanations for the x86 register mnemonics were great, thanks! To me the MIPS registers seem pretty logical too, though: $zr for zero, $sp for stack pointer, $a0-3 for arguments, $t0-7 for temporaries and $s0-7 for saved registers. Much better than the plain numbered registers on some assembly flavors.
RealityVoid 9y ago
Garrch, when I hear bit-addressable I get a twitch since a had to spend a night debugging a RISC system that was failing because a class of RAM didn't work with bit addressable instructions, the system was huge, the error cascaded strangely and the information was hidden somewhere in the 2000 page datasheet.

kqr 9y ago

I can recommend MIPS assembly. It has been the only assembly I've used that actually felt like it was intended for human consumption.

userbinator 9y ago
My experience with MIPS is the complete opposite --- simple things like loading a single constant into a register require two instructions, and the lack of addressing modes is also a bit annoying. Breaking dords into bytes and vice-versa involves long sequences of shifts and logical operations, the branch delay slot is confusing to say the least, and the plentiful-yet-unhelpfully-named registers don't really make things any easier. At least ARM's conditional execution and barrel shifter are more interesting and versatile. Then again, I admittedly learned 8080 and then Z80 and x86 first, so any RISC feels too simple; but those who learned any RISC first probably feel the exact opposite.
- nbsd4lyfe 9y ago
  > Breaking dords into bytes and vice-versa involves long sequences of shifts and logical operations modern MIPS has "ext" and "ins", which are probably an improvement in that regard. > plentiful-yet-unhelpfully-named registers what's wrong with MIPS register names? my only comparison is x86 and that has been awful. I'm constantly looking up which registers are what.
  - userbinator 9y ago
    what's wrong with MIPS register names? They're not really names, just "addresses" of a different form --- and of course, 0 is not really a register. x86 register names are supposed to be mnemonic, because certain instructions are only usable with, or have shorter forms when used with, the "right" register: Accumulator, Count, Base, Data/Divide, Stack Pointer, Base Pointer, Source Index, Destination Index.
    - crankybear1337 9y ago
      Those explanations for the x86 register mnemonics were great, thanks! To me the MIPS registers seem pretty logical too, though: $zr for zero, $sp for stack pointer, $a0-3 for arguments, $t0-7 for temporaries and $s0-7 for saved registers. Much better than the plain numbered registers on some assembly flavors.

RealityVoid 9y ago

Garrch, when I hear bit-addressable I get a twitch since a had to spend a night debugging a RISC system that was failing because a class of RAM didn't work with bit addressable instructions, the system was huge, the error cascaded strangely and the information was hidden somewhere in the 2000 page datasheet.