Subject talk:Assembly languages
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
This is strange. It seems to be x86 specific. There are several other microprocessor types with their own assembly languages in common use. The headings don't seem to indicate that the content will differentiate.
(2004-01-31)WarrenWilkinson: I've made mention of that in the introduction I've added. I'm currently learning Mips assembly in school and I'd like a space set out for me to go into detail on that dialect of Assembly, as well as the Spim intreter for it. However I'm afraid somebody with more knowledge than I has set up the current Content listing and would be offended if I tacked on another Processor without fully knowing were to put it.
Contents |
[edit] Is asm a programming language?
It seems to me that assembly is not a programming language. For sure it is used to program, but it is a direct representation of the instructions sent to the processor. In fact, one can take the binary instructions contained in the program and translate them directly (without any need to "reverse engineer" the compilation process done by the compiler) to ASM.
That said, I think we should present people Assembly programming as just some mnemonics that are easier read by humans than plain numbers.
So, do you agree we should change the infos in this page to _not_ say that assembly is a programming language? --Protectr 22:52, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Assembly _is_ a programming language
Yes, assembly is a programming language.
[edit] Page Revamp, Etc
Some of the current text of this page is written in the first person, and is probably not the best. I'm going to fix some of the bad formatting (html, etc), and also remove first-person references. Originally this page was set up as a bookshelf to contain all the assembly programming books, but I think we can shelve all the individual books on the CS bookshelf, and use this book instead as a basic introduction book to assembly language programming. In addition to the assembly language books, we can also reference the new Microprocessor Design book, in order to talk about the underlying mechanics of processors, and the way assembly language mneumonics are related to the machine code instruction words. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Currently this is called "Subject:Assembly Language". What is this "Subject" namespace?
- I know that the "Category:" namespace describes categories of books such as Category:Programming.
- I know that the "Wikibooks:" namespace holds bookshelves such as Wikibooks:Programming languages bookshelf.
- Shouldn't this book be moved to the main namespace, renamed Assembly Language?
- --DavidCary (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
For x86, there is also a book [x86 Disassembly] which I believe warrants listing. Ray Dassen (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Programming Assembly: Inaccuracy
In the section, Programming Assembly, step 4 is "add r1 and r2. Store result in r3." Isn't it more common to store the result in the first operand when adding, so that the result would be stored in r1? I'm asking here because I'm a bit rusty with asm; someone more sure of their knowledge can edit it.
- In x86 assembly, the command is
add ax, bx, and the result is stored in ax. However, in MIPS assembly, the command isadd r1, r2, r3and the result is stored in r3. It always depends on the architecture, but for x86, there definitely is additional complication. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
