Split (1)

train · 7.61k rows

Number int64 1 7.61k	Text stringlengths 2 3.11k
1,801	In traditional compilation, the executable output of the linkers is typically relocatable when run under a general operating system, much like the object code modules are but with the difference that this relocation is done dynamically at run time, i.e. when the program is loaded for execution. On the other hand, compiled and linked programs for small embedded systems are typically statically allocated, often hard coded in a NOR flash memory, as there is often no secondary storage and no operating system in this sense.
1,802	Historically, most interpreter systems have had a self-contained editor built in. This is becoming more common also for compilers , although some programmers prefer to use an editor of their choice and run the compiler, linker and other tools manually. Historically, compilers predate interpreters because hardware at that time could not support both the interpreter and interpreted code and the typical batch environment of the time limited the advantages of interpretation.
1,803	During the software development cycle, programmers make frequent changes to source code. When using a compiler, each time a change is made to the source code, they must wait for the compiler to translate the altered source files and link all of the binary code files together before the program can be executed. The larger the program, the longer the wait. By contrast, a programmer using an interpreter does a lot less waiting, as the interpreter usually just needs to translate the code being worked on to an intermediate representation , thus requiring much less time before the changes can be tested. Effects are evident upon saving the source code and reloading the program. Compiled code is generally less readily debugged as editing, compiling, and linking are sequential processes that have to be conducted in the proper sequence with a proper set of commands. For this reason, many compilers also have an executive aid, known as a Makefile and program. The Makefile lists compiler and linker command lines and program source code files, but might take a simple command line menu input which selects the third group of instructions then issues the commands to the compiler, and linker feeding the specified source code files.
1,804	A compiler converts source code into binary instruction for a specific processor's architecture, thus making it less portable. This conversion is made just once, on the developer's environment, and after that the same binary can be distributed to the user's machines where it can be executed without further translation. A cross compiler can generate binary code for the user machine even if it has a different processor than the machine where the code is compiled.
1,805	An interpreted program can be distributed as source code. It needs to be translated in each final machine, which takes more time but makes the program distribution independent of the machine's architecture. However, the portability of interpreted source code is dependent on the target machine actually having a suitable interpreter. If the interpreter needs to be supplied along with the source, the overall installation process is more complex than delivery of a monolithic executable, since the interpreter itself is part of what needs to be installed.
1,806	The fact that interpreted code can easily be read and copied by humans can be of concern from the point of view of copyright. However, various systems of encryption and obfuscation exist. Delivery of intermediate code, such as bytecode, has a similar effect to obfuscation, but bytecode could be decoded with a decompiler or disassembler.
1,807	The main disadvantage of interpreters is that an interpreted program typically runs more slowly than if it had been compiled. The difference in speeds could be tiny or great; often an order of magnitude and sometimes more. It generally takes longer to run a program under an interpreter than to run the compiled code but it can take less time to interpret it than the total time required to compile and run it. This is especially important when prototyping and testing code when an edit-interpret-debug cycle can often be much shorter than an edit-compile-run-debug cycle.
1,808	Interpreting code is slower than running the compiled code because the interpreter must analyze each statement in the program each time it is executed and then perform the desired action, whereas the compiled code just performs the action within a fixed context determined by the compilation. This run-time analysis is known as "interpretive overhead". Access to variables is also slower in an interpreter because the mapping of identifiers to storage locations must be done repeatedly at run-time rather than at compile time.
1,809	There are various compromises between the development speed when using an interpreter and the execution speed when using a compiler. Some systems allow interpreted and compiled code to call each other and to share variables. This means that once a routine has been tested and debugged under the interpreter it can be compiled and thus benefit from faster execution while other routines are being developed. Many interpreters do not execute the source code as it stands but convert it into some more compact internal form. Many BASIC interpreters replace keywords with single byte tokens which can be used to find the instruction in a jump table. A few interpreters, such as the PBASIC interpreter, achieve even higher levels of program compaction by using a bit-oriented rather than a byte-oriented program memory structure, where commands tokens occupy perhaps 5 bits, nominally "16-bit" constants are stored in a variable-length code requiring 3, 6, 10, or 18 bits, and address operands include a "bit offset". Many BASIC interpreters can store and read back their own tokenized internal representation.
1,810	An interpreter might well use the same lexical analyzer and parser as the compiler and then interpret the resulting abstract syntax tree. Example data type definitions for the latter, and a toy interpreter for syntax trees obtained from C expressions are shown in the box.
1,811	Interpretation cannot be used as the sole method of execution: even though an interpreter can itself be interpreted and so on, a directly executed program is needed somewhere at the bottom of the stack because the code being interpreted is not, by definition, the same as the machine code that the CPU can execute.
1,812	There is a spectrum of possibilities between interpreting and compiling, depending on the amount of analysis performed before the program is executed. For example, Emacs Lisp is compiled to bytecode, which is a highly compressed and optimized representation of the Lisp source, but is not machine code . This "compiled" code is then interpreted by a bytecode interpreter . The compiled code in this case is machine code for a virtual machine, which is implemented not in hardware, but in the bytecode interpreter. Such compiling interpreters are sometimes also called compreters. In a bytecode interpreter each instruction starts with a byte, and therefore bytecode interpreters have up to 256 instructions, although not all may be used. Some bytecodes may take multiple bytes, and may be arbitrarily complicated.
1,813	Control tables - that do not necessarily ever need to pass through a compiling phase - dictate appropriate algorithmic control flow via customized interpreters in similar fashion to bytecode interpreters.
1,814	Threaded code interpreters are similar to bytecode interpreters but instead of bytes they use pointers. Each "instruction" is a word that points to a function or an instruction sequence, possibly followed by a parameter. The threaded code interpreter either loops fetching instructions and calling the functions they point to, or fetches the first instruction and jumps to it, and every instruction sequence ends with a fetch and jump to the next instruction. Unlike bytecode there is no effective limit on the number of different instructions other than available memory and address space. The classic example of threaded code is the Forth code used in Open Firmware systems: the source language is compiled into "F code" , which is then interpreted by a virtual machine.
1,815	In the spectrum between interpreting and compiling, another approach is to transform the source code into an optimized abstract syntax tree , then execute the program following this tree structure, or use it to generate native code just-in-time. In this approach, each sentence needs to be parsed just once. As an advantage over bytecode, the AST keeps the global program structure and relations between statements , and when compressed provides a more compact representation. Thus, using AST has been proposed as a better intermediate format for just-in-time compilers than bytecode. Also, it allows the system to perform better analysis during runtime.
1,816	However, for interpreters, an AST causes more overhead than a bytecode interpreter, because of nodes related to syntax performing no useful work, of a less sequential representation and of overhead visiting the tree.
1,817	Further blurring the distinction between interpreters, bytecode interpreters and compilation is just-in-time compilation, a technique in which the intermediate representation is compiled to native machine code at runtime. This confers the efficiency of running native code, at the cost of startup time and increased memory use when the bytecode or AST is first compiled. The earliest published JIT compiler is generally attributed to work on LISP by John McCarthy in 1960. Adaptive optimization is a complementary technique in which the interpreter profiles the running program and compiles its most frequently executed parts into native code. The latter technique is a few decades old, appearing in languages such as Smalltalk in the 1980s.
1,818	Just-in-time compilation has gained mainstream attention amongst language implementers in recent years, with Java, the .NET Framework, most modern JavaScript implementations, and Matlab now including JIT compilers.
1,819	Making the distinction between compilers and interpreters yet again even more vague is a special interpreter design known as a template interpreter. Rather than implement the execution of code by virtue of a large switch statement containing every possible bytecode, while operating on a software stack or a tree walk, a template interpreter maintains a large array of bytecode mapped directly to corresponding native machine instructions that can be executed on the host hardware as key value pairs , known as a "Template". When the particular code segment is executed the interpreter simply loads or jumps to the opcode mapping in the template and directly runs it on the hardware. Due to its design, the template interpreter very strongly resembles a just-in-time compiler rather than a traditional interpreter, however it is technically not a JIT due to the fact that it merely translates code from the language into native calls one opcode at a time rather than creating optimized sequences of CPU executable instructions from the entire code segment. Due to the interpreter's simple design of simply passing calls directly to the hardware rather than implementing them directly, it is much faster than every other type, even bytecode interpreters, and to an extent less prone to bugs, but as a tradeoff is more difficult to maintain due to the interpreter having to support translation to multiple different architectures instead of a platform independent virtual machine/stack. To date, the only template interpreter implementations of widely known languages to exist are the interpreter within Java's official reference implementation, the Sun HotSpot Java Virtual Machine, and the Ignition Interpreter in the Google V8 javascript execution engine.
1,820	A self-interpreter is a programming language interpreter written in a programming language which can interpret itself; an example is a BASIC interpreter written in BASIC. Self-interpreters are related to self-hosting compilers.
1,821	If no compiler exists for the language to be interpreted, creating a self-interpreter requires the implementation of the language in a host language . By having a first interpreter such as this, the system is bootstrapped and new versions of the interpreter can be developed in the language itself. It was in this way that Donald Knuth developed the TANGLE interpreter for the language WEB of the de-facto standard TeX typesetting system.
1,822	Defining a computer language is usually done in relation to an abstract machine or as a mathematical function . A language may also be defined by an interpreter in which the semantics of the host language is given. The definition of a language by a self-interpreter is not well-founded , but a self-interpreter tells a reader about the expressiveness and elegance of a language. It also enables the interpreter to interpret its source code, the first step towards reflective interpreting.
1,823	An important design dimension in the implementation of a self-interpreter is whether a feature of the interpreted language is implemented with the same feature in the interpreter's host language. An example is whether a closure in a Lisp-like language is implemented using closures in the interpreter language or implemented "manually" with a data structure explicitly storing the environment. The more features implemented by the same feature in the host language, the less control the programmer of the interpreter has; for example, a different behavior for dealing with number overflows cannot be realized if the arithmetic operations are delegated to corresponding operations in the host language.
1,824	Some languages such as Lisp and Prolog have elegant self-interpreters. Much research on self-interpreters has been conducted in the Scheme programming language, a dialect of Lisp. In general, however, any Turing-complete language allows writing of its own interpreter. Lisp is such a language, because Lisp programs are lists of symbols and other lists. XSLT is such a language, because XSLT programs are written in XML. A sub-domain of metaprogramming is the writing of domain-specific languages .
1,825	Clive Gifford introduced a measure quality of self-interpreter , the limit of the ratio between computer time spent running a stack of N self-interpreters and time spent to run a stack of N − 1 self-interpreters as N goes to infinity. This value does not depend on the program being run.
1,826	The book Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs presents examples of meta-circular interpretation for Scheme and its dialects. Other examples of languages with a self-interpreter are Forth and Pascal.
1,827	Microcode is a very commonly used technique "that imposes an interpreter between the hardware and the architectural level of a computer". As such, the microcode is a layer of hardware-level instructions that implement higher-level machine code instructions or internal state machine sequencing in many digital processing elements. Microcode is used in general-purpose central processing units, as well as in more specialized processors such as microcontrollers, digital signal processors, channel controllers, disk controllers, network interface controllers, network processors, graphics processing units, and in other hardware.
1,828	Microcode typically resides in special high-speed memory and translates machine instructions, state machine data or other input into sequences of detailed circuit-level operations. It separates the machine instructions from the underlying electronics so that instructions can be designed and altered more freely. It also facilitates the building of complex multi-step instructions, while reducing the complexity of computer circuits. Writing microcode is often called microprogramming and the microcode in a particular processor implementation is sometimes called a microprogram.
1,829	More extensive microcoding allows small and simple microarchitectures to emulate more powerful architectures with wider word length, more execution units and so on, which is a relatively simple way to achieve software compatibility between different products in a processor family.
1,830	Even a non microcoding computer processor itself can be considered to be a parsing immediate execution interpreter that is written in a general purpose hardware description language such as VHDL to create a system that parses the machine code instructions and immediately executes them.
1,831	Interpreters, such as those written in Java, Perl, and Tcl, are now necessary for a wide range of computational tasks, including binary emulation and internet applications. Interpreter performance is still a worry despite their adaptability, particularly on systems with limited hardware resources. Advanced instrumentation and tracing approaches provide insights into interpreter implementations and processor resource utilization during execution through evaluations of interpreters tailored for the MIPS instruction set and programming languages such as Tcl, Perl, and Java. Performance characteristics are influenced by interpreter complexity, as demonstrated by comparisons with compiled code. It is clear that interpreter performance is more dependent on the nuances and resource needs of the interpreter than it is on the particular application that is being interpreted.
1,832	In computer programming, assembly language , often referred to simply as assembly and commonly abbreviated as ASM or asm, is any low-level programming language with a very strong correspondence between the instructions in the language and the architecture's machine code instructions. Assembly language usually has one statement per machine instruction , but constants, comments, assembler directives, symbolic labels of, e.g., memory locations, registers, and macros are generally also supported.
1,833	The first assembly code in which a language is used to represent machine code instructions is found in Kathleen and Andrew Donald Booth's 1947 work, Coding for A.R.C.. Assembly code is converted into executable machine code by a utility program referred to as an assembler. The term "assembler" is generally attributed to Wilkes, Wheeler and Gill in their 1951 book The Preparation of Programs for an Electronic Digital Computer, who, however, used the term to mean "a program that assembles another program consisting of several sections into a single program". The conversion process is referred to as assembly, as in assembling the source code. The computational step when an assembler is processing a program is called assembly time.
1,834	Because assembly depends on the machine code instructions, each assembly language is specific to a particular computer architecture.
1,835	Sometimes there is more than one assembler for the same architecture, and sometimes an assembler is specific to an operating system or to particular operating systems. Most assembly languages do not provide specific syntax for operating system calls, and most assembly languages can be used universally with any operating system, as the language provides access to all the real capabilities of the processor, upon which all system call mechanisms ultimately rest. In contrast to assembly languages, most high-level programming languages are generally portable across multiple architectures but require interpreting or compiling, much more complicated tasks than assembling.
1,836	In the first decades of computing, it was commonplace for both systems programming and application programming to take place entirely in assembly language. While still irreplaceable for some purposes, the majority of programming is now conducted in higher-level interpreted and compiled languages. In "No Silver Bullet", Fred Brooks summarised the effects of the switch away from assembly language programming: "Surely the most powerful stroke for software productivity, reliability, and simplicity has been the progressive use of high-level languages for programming. Most observers credit that development with at least a factor of five in productivity, and with concomitant gains in reliability, simplicity, and comprehensibility."
1,837	Today, it is typical to use small amounts of assembly language code within larger systems implemented in a higher-level language, for performance reasons or to interact directly with hardware in ways unsupported by the higher-level language. For instance, just under 2% of version 4.9 of the Linux kernel source code is written in assembly; more than 97% is written in C.
1,838	Assembly language uses a mnemonic to represent, e.g., each low-level machine instruction or opcode, each directive, typically also each architectural register, flag, etc. Some of the mnemonics may be built in and some user defined. Many operations require one or more operands in order to form a complete instruction. Most assemblers permit named constants, registers, and labels for program and memory locations, and can calculate expressions for operands. Thus, programmers are freed from tedious repetitive calculations and assembler programs are much more readable than machine code. Depending on the architecture, these elements may also be combined for specific instructions or addressing modes using offsets or other data as well as fixed addresses. Many assemblers offer additional mechanisms to facilitate program development, to control the assembly process, and to aid debugging.
1,839	Some are column oriented, with specific fields in specific columns; this was very common for machines using punched cards in the 1950s and early 1960s. Some assemblers have free-form syntax, with fields separated by delimiters, e.g., punctuation, white space. Some assemblers are hybrid, with, e.g., labels, in a specific column and other fields separated by delimiters; this became more common than column oriented syntax in the 1960s.
1,840	An assembler program creates object code by translating combinations of mnemonics and syntax for operations and addressing modes into their numerical equivalents. This representation typically includes an operation code as well as other control bits and data. The assembler also calculates constant expressions and resolves symbolic names for memory locations and other entities. The use of symbolic references is a key feature of assemblers, saving tedious calculations and manual address updates after program modifications. Most assemblers also include macro facilities for performing textual substitution – e.g., to generate common short sequences of instructions as inline, instead of called subroutines.
1,841	Some assemblers may also be able to perform some simple types of instruction set-specific optimizations. One concrete example of this may be the ubiquitous x86 assemblers from various vendors. Called jump-sizing, most of them are able to perform jump-instruction replacements in any number of passes, on request. Others may even do simple rearrangement or insertion of instructions, such as some assemblers for RISC architectures that can help optimize a sensible instruction scheduling to exploit the CPU pipeline as efficiently as possible.
1,842	Assemblers have been available since the 1950s, as the first step above machine language and before high-level programming languages such as Fortran, Algol, COBOL and Lisp. There have also been several classes of translators and semi-automatic code generators with properties similar to both assembly and high-level languages, with Speedcode as perhaps one of the better-known examples.
1,843	There may be several assemblers with different syntax for a particular CPU or instruction set architecture. For instance, an instruction to add memory data to a register in a x86-family processor might be add eax,, in original Intel syntax, whereas this would be written addl ,%eax in the AT&T syntax used by the GNU Assembler. Despite different appearances, different syntactic forms generally generate the same numeric machine code. A single assembler may also have different modes in order to support variations in syntactic forms as well as their exact semantic interpretations .
1,844	There are two types of assemblers based on how many passes through the source are needed to produce the object file.
1,845	In both cases, the assembler must be able to determine the size of each instruction on the initial passes in order to calculate the addresses of subsequent symbols. This means that if the size of an operation referring to an operand defined later depends on the type or distance of the operand, the assembler will make a pessimistic estimate when first encountering the operation, and if necessary, pad it with one or more "no-operation" instructions in a later pass or the errata. In an assembler with peephole optimization, addresses may be recalculated between passes to allow replacing pessimistic code with code tailored to the exact distance from the target.
1,846	The original reason for the use of one-pass assemblers was memory size and speed of assembly – often a second pass would require storing the symbol table in memory , rewinding and rereading the program source on tape, or rereading a deck of cards or punched paper tape. Later computers with much larger memories , had the space to perform all necessary processing without such re-reading. The advantage of the multi-pass assembler is that the absence of errata makes the linking process faster.
1,847	Example: in the following code snippet, a one-pass assembler would be able to determine the address of the backward reference BKWD when assembling statement S2, but would not be able to determine the address of the forward reference FWD when assembling the branch statement S1; indeed, FWD may be undefined. A two-pass assembler would determine both addresses in pass 1, so they would be known when generating code in pass 2.
1,848	More sophisticated high-level assemblers provide language abstractions such as:
1,849	See Language design below for more details.
1,850	A program written in assembly language consists of a series of mnemonic processor instructions and meta-statements , comments and data. Assembly language instructions usually consist of an opcode mnemonic followed by an operand, which might be a list of data, arguments or parameters. Some instructions may be "implied", which means the data upon which the instruction operates is implicitly defined by the instruction itself—such an instruction does not take an operand. The resulting statement is translated by an assembler into machine language instructions that can be loaded into memory and executed.
1,851	For example, the instruction below tells an x86/IA-32 processor to move an immediate 8-bit value into a register. The binary code for this instruction is 10110 followed by a 3-bit identifier for which register to use. The identifier for the AL register is 000, so the following machine code loads the AL register with the data 01100001.
1,852	This binary computer code can be made more human-readable by expressing it in hexadecimal as follows.
1,853	Here, B0 means 'Move a copy of the following value into AL, and 61 is a hexadecimal representation of the value 01100001, which is 97 in decimal. Assembly language for the 8086 family provides the mnemonic MOV for instructions such as this, so the machine code above can be written as follows in assembly language, complete with an explanatory comment if required, after the semicolon. This is much easier to read and to remember.
1,854	In some assembly languages the same mnemonic, such as MOV, may be used for a family of related instructions for loading, copying and moving data, whether these are immediate values, values in registers, or memory locations pointed to by values in registers or by immediate addresses. Other assemblers may use separate opcode mnemonics such as L for "move memory to register", ST for "move register to memory", LR for "move register to register", MVI for "move immediate operand to memory", etc.
1,855	If the same mnemonic is used for different instructions, that means that the mnemonic corresponds to several different binary instruction codes, excluding data , depending on the operands that follow the mnemonic. For example, for the x86/IA-32 CPUs, the Intel assembly language syntax MOV AL, AH represents an instruction that moves the contents of register AH into register AL. The hexadecimal form of this instruction is:
1,856	The first byte, 88h, identifies a move between a byte-sized register and either another register or memory, and the second byte, E0h, is encoded to specify that both operands are registers, the source is AH, and the destination is AL.
1,857	In a case like this where the same mnemonic can represent more than one binary instruction, the assembler determines which instruction to generate by examining the operands. In the first example, the operand 61h is a valid hexadecimal numeric constant and is not a valid register name, so only the B0 instruction can be applicable. In the second example, the operand AH is a valid register name and not a valid numeric constant , so only the 88 instruction can be applicable.
1,858	Assembly languages are always designed so that this sort of lack of ambiguity is universally enforced by their syntax. For example, in the Intel x86 assembly language, a hexadecimal constant must start with a numeral digit, so that the hexadecimal number 'A' would be written as 0Ah or 0AH, not AH, specifically so that it cannot appear to be the name of register AH.
1,859	Returning to the original example, while the x86 opcode 10110000 copies an 8-bit value into the AL register, 10110001 moves it into CL and 10110010 does so into DL. Assembly language examples for these follow.
1,860	The syntax of MOV can also be more complex as the following examples show.
1,861	In each case, the MOV mnemonic is translated directly into one of the opcodes 88-8C, 8E, A0-A3, B0-BF, C6 or C7 by an assembler, and the programmer normally does not have to know or remember which.
1,862	Transforming assembly language into machine code is the job of an assembler, and the reverse can at least partially be achieved by a disassembler. Unlike high-level languages, there is a one-to-one correspondence between many simple assembly statements and machine language instructions. However, in some cases, an assembler may provide pseudoinstructions which expand into several machine language instructions to provide commonly needed functionality. For example, for a machine that lacks a "branch if greater or equal" instruction, an assembler may provide a pseudoinstruction that expands to the machine's "set if less than" and "branch if zero ". Most full-featured assemblers also provide a rich macro language which is used by vendors and programmers to generate more complex code and data sequences. Since the information about pseudoinstructions and macros defined in the assembler environment is not present in the object program, a disassembler cannot reconstruct the macro and pseudoinstruction invocations but can only disassemble the actual machine instructions that the assembler generated from those abstract assembly-language entities. Likewise, since comments in the assembly language source file are ignored by the assembler and have no effect on the object code it generates, a disassembler is always completely unable to recover source comments.
1,863	Each computer architecture has its own machine language. Computers differ in the number and type of operations they support, in the different sizes and numbers of registers, and in the representations of data in storage. While most general-purpose computers are able to carry out essentially the same functionality, the ways they do so differ; the corresponding assembly languages reflect these differences.
1,864	Multiple sets of mnemonics or assembly-language syntax may exist for a single instruction set, typically instantiated in different assembler programs. In these cases, the most popular one is usually that supplied by the CPU manufacturer and used in its documentation.
1,865	Two examples of CPUs that have two different sets of mnemonics are the Intel 8080 family and the Intel 8086/8088. Because Intel claimed copyright on its assembly language mnemonics , some companies that independently produced CPUs compatible with Intel instruction sets invented their own mnemonics. The Zilog Z80 CPU, an enhancement of the Intel 8080A, supports all the 8080A instructions plus many more; Zilog invented an entirely new assembly language, not only for the new instructions but also for all of the 8080A instructions. For example, where Intel uses the mnemonics MOV, MVI, LDA, STA, LXI, LDAX, STAX, LHLD, and SHLD for various data transfer instructions, the Z80 assembly language uses the mnemonic LD for all of them. A similar case is the NEC V20 and V30 CPUs, enhanced copies of the Intel 8086 and 8088, respectively. Like Zilog with the Z80, NEC invented new mnemonics for all of the 8086 and 8088 instructions, to avoid accusations of infringement of Intel's copyright. It is doubtful whether in practice many people who programmed the V20 and V30 actually wrote in NEC's assembly language rather than Intel's; since any two assembly languages for the same instruction set architecture are isomorphic , there is no requirement to use a manufacturer's own published assembly language with that manufacturer's products.
1,866	There is a large degree of diversity in the way the authors of assemblers categorize statements and in the nomenclature that they use. In particular, some describe anything other than a machine mnemonic or extended mnemonic as a pseudo-operation . A typical assembly language consists of 3 types of instruction statements that are used to define program operations:
1,867	Instructions in assembly language are generally very simple, unlike those in high-level languages. Generally, a mnemonic is a symbolic name for a single executable machine language instruction , and there is at least one opcode mnemonic defined for each machine language instruction. Each instruction typically consists of an operation or opcode plus zero or more operands. Most instructions refer to a single value or a pair of values. Operands can be immediate , registers specified in the instruction or implied, or the addresses of data located elsewhere in storage. This is determined by the underlying processor architecture: the assembler merely reflects how this architecture works. Extended mnemonics are often used to specify a combination of an opcode with a specific operand, e.g., the System/360 assemblers use B as an extended mnemonic for BC with a mask of 15 and NOP for BC with a mask of 0.
1,868	Extended mnemonics are often used to support specialized uses of instructions, often for purposes not obvious from the instruction name. For example, many CPU's do not have an explicit NOP instruction, but do have instructions that can be used for the purpose. In 8086 CPUs the instruction xchg ax,ax is used for nop, with nop being a pseudo-opcode to encode the instruction xchg ax,ax. Some disassemblers recognize this and will decode the xchg ax,ax instruction as nop. Similarly, IBM assemblers for System/360 and System/370 use the extended mnemonics NOP and NOPR for BC and BCR with zero masks. For the SPARC architecture, these are known as synthetic instructions.
1,869	Some assemblers also support simple built-in macro-instructions that generate two or more machine instructions. For instance, with some Z80 assemblers the instruction ld hl,bc is recognized to generate ld l,c followed by ld h,b. These are sometimes known as pseudo-opcodes.
1,870	Mnemonics are arbitrary symbols; in 1985 the IEEE published Standard 694 for a uniform set of mnemonics to be used by all assemblers. The standard has since been withdrawn.
1,871	There are instructions used to define data elements to hold data and variables. They define the type of data, the length and the alignment of data. These instructions can also define whether the data is available to outside programs or only to the program in which the data section is defined. Some assemblers classify these as pseudo-ops.
1,872	Assembly directives, also called pseudo-opcodes, pseudo-operations or pseudo-ops, are commands given to an assembler "directing it to perform operations other than assembling instructions". Directives affect how the assembler operates and "may affect the object code, the symbol table, the listing file, and the values of internal assembler parameters". Sometimes the term pseudo-opcode is reserved for directives that generate object code, such as those that generate data.
1,873	The names of pseudo-ops often start with a dot to distinguish them from machine instructions. Pseudo-ops can make the assembly of the program dependent on parameters input by a programmer, so that one program can be assembled in different ways, perhaps for different applications. Or, a pseudo-op can be used to manipulate presentation of a program to make it easier to read and maintain. Another common use of pseudo-ops is to reserve storage areas for run-time data and optionally initialize their contents to known values.
1,874	Symbolic assemblers let programmers associate arbitrary names with memory locations and various constants. Usually, every constant and variable is given a name so instructions can reference those locations by name, thus promoting self-documenting code. In executable code, the name of each subroutine is associated with its entry point, so any calls to a subroutine can use its name. Inside subroutines, GOTO destinations are given labels. Some assemblers support local symbols which are often lexically distinct from normal symbols .
1,875	Some assemblers, such as NASM, provide flexible symbol management, letting programmers manage different namespaces, automatically calculate offsets within data structures, and assign labels that refer to literal values or the result of simple computations performed by the assembler. Labels can also be used to initialize constants and variables with relocatable addresses.
1,876	Assembly languages, like most other computer languages, allow comments to be added to program source code that will be ignored during assembly. Judicious commenting is essential in assembly language programs, as the meaning and purpose of a sequence of binary machine instructions can be difficult to determine. The "raw" assembly language generated by compilers or disassemblers is quite difficult to read when changes must be made.
1,877	Many assemblers support predefined macros, and others support programmer-defined macros involving sequences of text lines in which variables and constants are embedded. The macro definition is most commonly a mixture of assembler statements, e.g., directives, symbolic machine instructions, and templates for assembler statements. This sequence of text lines may include opcodes or directives. Once a macro has been defined its name may be used in place of a mnemonic. When the assembler processes such a statement, it replaces the statement with the text lines associated with that macro, then processes them as if they existed in the source code file . Macros in this sense date to IBM autocoders of the 1950s.
1,878	Macro assemblers typically have directives to, e.g., define macros, define variables, set variables to the result of an arithmetic, logical or string expression, iterate, conditionally generate code. Some of those directives may be restricted to use within a macro definition, e.g., MEXIT in HLASM, while others may be permitted within open code , e.g., AIF and COPY in HLASM.
1,879	In assembly language, the term "macro" represents a more comprehensive concept than it does in some other contexts, such as the pre-processor in the C programming language, where its #define directive typically is used to create short single line macros. Assembler macro instructions, like macros in PL/I and some other languages, can be lengthy "programs" by themselves, executed by interpretation by the assembler during assembly.
1,880	Since macros can have 'short' names but expand to several or indeed many lines of code, they can be used to make assembly language programs appear to be far shorter, requiring fewer lines of source code, as with higher level languages. They can also be used to add higher levels of structure to assembly programs, optionally introduce embedded debugging code via parameters and other similar features.
1,881	Macro assemblers often allow macros to take parameters. Some assemblers include quite sophisticated macro languages, incorporating such high-level language elements as optional parameters, symbolic variables, conditionals, string manipulation, and arithmetic operations, all usable during the execution of a given macro, and allowing macros to save context or exchange information. Thus a macro might generate numerous assembly language instructions or data definitions, based on the macro arguments. This could be used to generate record-style data structures or "unrolled" loops, for example, or could generate entire algorithms based on complex parameters. For instance, a "sort" macro could accept the specification of a complex sort key and generate code crafted for that specific key, not needing the run-time tests that would be required for a general procedure interpreting the specification. An organization using assembly language that has been heavily extended using such a macro suite can be considered to be working in a higher-level language since such programmers are not working with a computer's lowest-level conceptual elements. Underlining this point, macros were used to implement an early virtual machine in SNOBOL4 , which was written in the SNOBOL Implementation Language , an assembly language for a virtual machine. The target machine would translate this to its native code using a macro assembler. This allowed a high degree of portability for the time.
1,882	Macros were used to customize large scale software systems for specific customers in the mainframe era and were also used by customer personnel to satisfy their employers' needs by making specific versions of manufacturer operating systems. This was done, for example, by systems programmers working with IBM's Conversational Monitor System / Virtual Machine and with IBM's "real time transaction processing" add-ons, Customer Information Control System CICS, and ACP/TPF, the airline/financial system that began in the 1970s and still runs many large computer reservation systems and credit card systems today.
1,883	It is also possible to use solely the macro processing abilities of an assembler to generate code written in completely different languages, for example, to generate a version of a program in COBOL using a pure macro assembler program containing lines of COBOL code inside assembly time operators instructing the assembler to generate arbitrary code. IBM OS/360 uses macros to perform system generation. The user specifies options by coding a series of assembler macros. Assembling these macros generates a job stream to build the system, including job control language and utility control statements.
1,884	This is because, as was realized in the 1960s, the concept of "macro processing" is independent of the concept of "assembly", the former being in modern terms more word processing, text processing, than generating object code. The concept of macro processing appeared, and appears, in the C programming language, which supports "preprocessor instructions" to set variables, and make conditional tests on their values. Unlike certain previous macro processors inside assemblers, the C preprocessor is not Turing-complete because it lacks the ability to either loop or "go to", the latter allowing programs to loop.
1,885	Despite the power of macro processing, it fell into disuse in many high level languages while remaining a perennial for assemblers.
1,886	Macro parameter substitution is strictly by name: at macro processing time, the value of a parameter is textually substituted for its name. The most famous class of bugs resulting was the use of a parameter that itself was an expression and not a simple name when the macro writer expected a name. In the macro:
1,887	the intention was that the caller would provide the name of a variable, and the "global" variable or constant b would be used to multiply "a". If foo is called with the parameter a-c, the macro expansion of load a-c*b occurs. To avoid any possible ambiguity, users of macro processors can parenthesize formal parameters inside macro definitions, or callers can parenthesize the input parameters.
1,888	Packages of macros have been written providing structured programming elements to encode execution flow. The earliest example of this approach was in the Concept-14 macro set, originally proposed by Harlan Mills , and implemented by Marvin Kessler at IBM's Federal Systems Division, which provided IF/ELSE/ENDIF and similar control flow blocks for OS/360 assembler programs. This was a way to reduce or eliminate the use of GOTO operations in assembly code, one of the main factors causing spaghetti code in assembly language. This approach was widely accepted in the early 1980s . IBM's High Level Assembler Toolkit includes such a macro package.
1,889	A curious design was A-Natural, a "stream-oriented" assembler for 8080/Z80, processors from Whitesmiths Ltd. . The language was classified as an assembler because it worked with raw machine elements such as opcodes, registers, and memory references; but it incorporated an expression syntax to indicate execution order. Parentheses and other special symbols, along with block-oriented structured programming constructs, controlled the sequence of the generated instructions. A-natural was built as the object language of a C compiler, rather than for hand-coding, but its logical syntax won some fans.
1,890	There has been little apparent demand for more sophisticated assemblers since the decline of large-scale assembly language development. In spite of that, they are still being developed and applied in cases where resource constraints or peculiarities in the target system's architecture prevent the effective use of higher-level languages.
1,891	Assemblers with a strong macro engine allow structured programming via macros, such as the switch macro provided with the Masm32 package :
1,892	Assembly languages were not available at the time when the stored-program computer was introduced. Kathleen Booth "is credited with inventing assembly language" based on theoretical work she began in 1947, while working on the ARC2 at Birkbeck, University of London following consultation by Andrew Booth with mathematician John von Neumann and physicist Herman Goldstine at the Institute for Advanced Study.
1,893	In late 1948, the Electronic Delay Storage Automatic Calculator had an assembler integrated into its bootstrap program. It used one-letter mnemonics developed by David Wheeler, who is credited by the IEEE Computer Society as the creator of the first "assembler". Reports on the EDSAC introduced the term "assembly" for the process of combining fields into an instruction word. SOAP was an assembly language for the IBM 650 computer written by Stan Poley in 1955.
1,894	Assembly languages eliminate much of the error-prone, tedious, and time-consuming first-generation programming needed with the earliest computers, freeing programmers from tedium such as remembering numeric codes and calculating addresses. They were once widely used for all sorts of programming. However, by the late 1950s, their use had largely been supplanted by higher-level languages, in the search for improved programming productivity. Today, assembly language is still used for direct hardware manipulation, access to specialized processor instructions, or to address critical performance issues. Typical uses are device drivers, low-level embedded systems, and real-time systems .
1,895	Numerous programs have been written entirely in assembly language. The Burroughs MCP was the first computer for which an operating system was not developed entirely in assembly language; it was written in Executive Systems Problem Oriented Language , an Algol dialect. Many commercial applications were written in assembly language as well, including a large amount of the IBM mainframe software written by large corporations. COBOL, FORTRAN and some PL/I eventually displaced much of this work, although a number of large organizations retained assembly-language application infrastructures well into the 1990s.
1,896	Assembly language has long been the primary development language for 8-bit home computers such Atari 8-bit family, Apple II, MSX, ZX Spectrum, and Commodore 64. Interpreted BASIC dialects on these systems offer insufficient execution speed and insufficient facilities to take full advantage of the available hardware. These systems have severe resource constraints, idiosyncratic memory and display architectures, and provide limited system services. There are also few high-level language compilers suitable for microcomputer use. Similarly, assembly language is the default choice for 8-bit consoles such as the Atari 2600 and Nintendo Entertainment System.
1,897	Key software for IBM PC compatibles was written in assembly language, such as MS-DOS, Turbo Pascal, and the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet. As computer speed grew exponentially, assembly language became a tool for speeding up parts of programs, such as the rendering of Doom, rather than a dominant development language. In the 1990s, assembly language was used to get performance out of systems such as the Sega Saturn and as the primary language for arcade hardware based on the TMS34010 integrated CPU/GPU such as Mortal Kombat and NBA Jam.
1,898	There has been debate over the usefulness and performance of assembly language relative to high-level languages.
1,899	Although assembly language has specific niche uses where it is important , there are other tools for optimization.
1,900	As of July 2017, the TIOBE index of programming language popularity ranks assembly language at 11, ahead of Visual Basic, for example. Assembler can be used to optimize for speed or optimize for size. In the case of speed optimization, modern optimizing compilers are claimed to render high-level languages into code that can run as fast as hand-written assembly, despite the counter-examples that can be found. The complexity of modern processors and memory sub-systems makes effective optimization increasingly difficult for compilers, as well as for assembly programmers. Moreover, increasing processor performance has meant that most CPUs sit idle most of the time, with delays caused by predictable bottlenecks such as cache misses, I/O operations and paging. This has made raw code execution speed a non-issue for many programmers.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.