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".