Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (93204)	2/15/2000 4:23:00 AM
From: dumbmoney	Respond to of 1571690

Low-level debug? What do you mean specifically? I'll bet low-level debug is pretty tough on modern-day x86 code already. Despite its many worts, the x86 is VERY easy to work with. And it hasn't changed in any important way in 15 years. IA64 is not programmer-friendly. But of course, it's not supposed to be. It's just supposed to be fast.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (93204)	2/15/2000 9:49:00 AM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571690

Ten, how practical is hand-optimizing assembly code these days anyway, even on RISC and/or CISC? I'm sure it's still done in some critical areas, but I'm almost positive Intel will have tools that can help hand-optimize critical sections in IA-64 code. Low-level debug? What do you mean specifically? I'll bet low-level debug is pretty tough on modern-day x86 code already. Programmers tend to like to do naughty things, because it makes them feel creative, and it is good for their job security. With VLIW architectures, any deviation from the standard tool flow is deadly. By low level debug, I mean machine instruction level. Debugging hardware under Windows usually requires this because there is so much junk in the OS. Scumbria Scumbria