On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 10:17, Simas Toleikis wrote: > >Semantics. Until any langiage compiles to pure 1s and 0s, it's all about > >bytecode. Even C compiles to assembler which is really just a low level > >bytecode. > > > > > Just a note: > > C compiles to opcodes. opcodes are 1s and 0s directly interpreted by CPU. > Same applies to assembler. (asm->opcodes). The true is that C has > nothing to do with assembly language. > > Note on inline C assembly: > When you use inline C assembler several thing happen: > 1) C compiles itself to assembler > 2) Your inline assembly code is then inserted properly > 3) Asm compiles to opcodes (And assembler compiler is required: MASM - > used by ms compilers, TASM-borland etc..) > > When no inline assembly used C code compiles directlly to opcodes. True :) I guess the point I was trying to make is that the opcodes that C compiles to are less efficient (processor wise) than if the actual machine language was manipulated. Working with assembler gets one closer to that potential efficiency, but still not perfect. Understandably this is necessary or we'd still be spending weeks to write simplistic programs. Cheers, Rob. -- .------------------------------------------------------------. | InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com | :------------------------------------------------------------: | An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting | | a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services | | such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn | | also provides an extremely flexible architecture for | | creating re-usable components quickly and easily. | `------------------------------------------------------------' -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
