Timeline for What "unusual" syntax assembly languages are/were there?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 21, 2020 at 12:19 | comment | added | dave | But my point for this topic is that the 1+1 address format does not make it syntactically strange. | |
| Apr 21, 2020 at 10:12 | comment | added | Graham | @another-dave Sure, and that's basically true of all assemblers - they're really just a mnemonic layer on top of the hardware features. The structure of the processor's memory, whether that's rotating or RAM-based, Von Neumann or Harvard, and any registers, is always reflected in the assembler mnemonics and how they are fed input and output values. | |
| Apr 21, 2020 at 10:01 | history | edited | Graham | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Apr 19, 2020 at 20:38 | comment | added | dave | The assembler had it because the machine did it like that - no program counter, but each instruction specified its successor. That seems to have been common on machines where primary memory was rotating (either magnetic drum or ultrasonic storage). See Optimum Programming on Wikipedia, or the IBM 650 (page 10, instruction format) for a specific example. Eventually there were assemblers that did that for you. | |
| Apr 19, 2020 at 19:46 | history | answered | Graham | CC BY-SA 4.0 |