Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:2225 comp.lang.c:14617 comp.lang.misc:2324
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!purdue!decwrl!sun!quintus!ok
From: ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Assembly or ....
Message-ID: <834@quintus.UUCP>
Date: 9 Dec 88 06:10:37 GMT
References: <1388@aucs.UUCP> <707@ethz.UUCP> <818@quintus.UUCP> <966@vsi.COM> <2159@garth.UUCP>
Sender: news@quintus.UUCP
Reply-To: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 12

In article <2159@garth.UUCP> smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) writes:
>>> (b) C with "asm" or "inline" can be made to generate any instruction.
>
>Asm by any other name is till assembly.

Not quite.  The big advantage of something like "inline" (that is, C
compilers which support "*.il" files) is that ordinary programmers can
get the benefits of inline assembly code *without* having to know that
that is what they are doing.  (It is almost possible to do this with
old-style "asm" by means of #include files.)  It isn't, for example,
easy to put assembly code through "lint", but it _is_ possible to
put a C program calling .inline macros through "lint".