64 bit Bridge for sale.

[Michael Pell]

imho, buying a chip without an assembler
is like buying a fuel cell powered car.
Since AMD has embraced open source
they should just post their assembler source
and LETS GET THIS SHOW ON THE ROAD.
Or maybe we should just wait for Intel. If
Intel was smart they would announce x86-64
tomorrow knowing if we have waited this
long, we would wait a liitle longer especially
when jobs and money are scarce.
Why spend money when you can't use it.

[Tony Hill]

On 2 Oct 2003 05:39:09 -0700, m_pell_98037@yahoo.com (Michael Pell)
wrote:imho, buying a chip without an assembleris like buying a fuel cell powered car.Since AMD has embraced open sourcethey should just post their assembler sourceand LETS GET THIS SHOW ON THE ROAD.

What, you mean like this:

http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/binutils/

Or maybe like this:

http://www.tortall.net/projects/yasm/releases/

Source code for two assemblers that support AMD64 right there. Or
perhaps you would prefer this:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_739_7044,00.html

Which goes into great detail about how to program for AMD64 chips.
Or maybe we should just wait for Intel. IfIntel was smart they would announce x86-64tomorrow knowing if we have waited thislong, we would wait a liitle longer especiallywhen jobs and money are scarce. Why spend money when you can't use it.

You can't get the software until the hardware is there. The hardware
is here now and software is showing up. Actually, software is showing
up very quickly. There are already three distributions of Linux that
support AMD64 now, SuSE, Redhat and Mandrake. Gentoo has an early
port, and Debian has started a port as well. FreeBSD and NetBSD are
both well along to releasing AMD64 versions of their operating system,
and OpenBSD has started a port. WinXP and Win2003 Server are both in
beta now for AMD64.

For compilers, GCC supports AMD64 now, as does PGI. Microsoft's
Visual Studio for AMD64 is in development to be released alongside the
operating system.

In short, AMD is actually getting VERY good software support for their
new architecture. It's only been 5 months since the first hardware
shipped. Compare that to where most other architectures are in their
first 6 months of release and you'll see that things are looking
fairly good for AMD.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[Replicant]

On this day of our lord, 2 Oct 2003 05:39:09 -0700,
m_pell_98037@yahoo.com (Michael Pell) quilled:
imho, buying a chip without an assembleris like buying a fuel cell powered car.Since AMD has embraced open sourcethey should just post their assembler sourceand LETS GET THIS SHOW ON THE ROAD.Or maybe we should just wait for Intel. IfIntel was smart they would announce x86-64tomorrow knowing if we have waited thislong, we would wait a liitle longer especiallywhen jobs and money are scarce. Why spend money when you can't use it.


Luddite alert!

[lyon_wonder]

>imho, buying a chip without an assembleris like buying a fuel cell powered car.

I think your'e confusing AMD64 with Intel's Itanic (which REALLY is
about as viable as a fuel cell or hydrogen powered vehicle for 99.99%
of users, server use or otherwise).

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <o07pnvg856c1nndmt0qih751ng8kf1kdbr@4ax.com>,
replicant@SPAMTRAP.invalid says... On this day of our lord, 2 Oct 2003 05:39:09 -0700, m_pell_98037@yahoo.com (Michael Pell) quilled:imho, buying a chip without an assembleris like buying a fuel cell powered car.Since AMD has embraced open sourcethey should just post their assembler sourceand LETS GET THIS SHOW ON THE ROAD.Or maybe we should just wait for Intel. IfIntel was smart they would announce x86-64tomorrow knowing if we have waited thislong, we would wait a liitle longer especiallywhen jobs and money are scarce. Why spend money when you can't use it. Luddite alert!

Actually, X86-64 *is* the 64-bit bridge, and it *is* for sale.
Go figure this thread!? ...and your luddite. ;-)

[Michael Pell]

Keith R. Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.19e6a3fdd920191298a74e@enews.newsguy.com>... In article <o07pnvg856c1nndmt0qih751ng8kf1kdbr@4ax.com>, replicant@SPAMTRAP.invalid says... On this day of our lord, 2 Oct 2003 05:39:09 -0700, m_pell_98037@yahoo.com (Michael Pell) quilled:imho, buying a chip without an assembleris like buying a fuel cell powered car.Since AMD has embraced open sourcethey should just post their assembler sourceand LETS GET THIS SHOW ON THE ROAD.Or maybe we should just wait for Intel. IfIntel was smart they would announce x86-64tomorrow knowing if we have waited thislong, we would wait a liitle longer especiallywhen jobs and money are scarce. Why spend money when you can't use it. Luddite alert! Actually, X86-64 *is* the 64-bit bridge, and it *is* for sale. Go figure this thread!? ...and your luddite. ;-)

I have a cart for you, but there's no horse in sight!
I maintain that if you can write microcode you can write
a macro assembler. Wouldn't you co-develop them.
I don't see how AMD, nor the many vendorsrequired,
can develop products without a professional
grade asembler. I think AMD simply holding out.

Mike

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <85b1fdf0.0310030903.39bc4ba0@posting.google.com>,
m_pell_98037@yahoo.com says... Keith R. Williams <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.19e6a3fdd920191298a74e@enews.newsguy.com>... In article <o07pnvg856c1nndmt0qih751ng8kf1kdbr@4ax.com>, replicant@SPAMTRAP.invalid says... On this day of our lord, 2 Oct 2003 05:39:09 -0700, m_pell_98037@yahoo.com (Michael Pell) quilled: >imho, buying a chip without an assembler >is like buying a fuel cell powered car. >Since AMD has embraced open source >they should just post their assembler source >and LETS GET THIS SHOW ON THE ROAD. >Or maybe we should just wait for Intel. If >Intel was smart they would announce x86-64 >tomorrow knowing if we have waited this >long, we would wait a liitle longer especially >when jobs and money are scarce. > Why spend money when you can't use it. Luddite alert! Actually, X86-64 *is* the 64-bit bridge, and it *is* for sale. Go figure this thread!? ...and your luddite. ;-) I have a cart for you, but there's no horse in sight!

Are you *seriously* trying to say that there are no x86-64
compilers available? Or are you simply pissing in your shoes
because you can't get your fav assembler?
I maintain that if you can write microcode you can write a macro assembler.

What these have to do with each other is a wonder.
Wouldn't you co-develop them. I don't see how AMD, nor the many vendorsrequired, can develop products without a professional grade asembler. I think AMD simply holding out.

I think you're on crack! ...that's what I think.

--
Keith

[Dean Kent]

"Michael Pell" <m_pell_98037@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:85b1fdf0.0310030903.39bc4ba0@posting.google.com... I maintain that if you can write microcode you can write a macro assembler.

"I do not think that word means what you think it means"...
Wouldn't you co-develop them.

Um - what exactly is it about microcode that makes it so closely related to
an assembler?
I don't see how AMD, nor the many vendorsrequired, can develop products without a professional grade asembler. I think AMD simply holding out.

I'll bet you that MS has a 64-bit assembler for internal use, but they don't
see any need to ship it until they have a 64-bit compiler available to the
public. I don't think they give a damn about what you (or I) think. (no
offense intended). :-).

Regards,
Dean
Mike

[Yousuf Khan]

"Michael Pell" <m_pell_98037@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:85b1fdf0.0310020439.1db94419@posting.google.com... imho, buying a chip without an assembler is like buying a fuel cell powered car. Since AMD has embraced open source they should just post their assembler source and LETS GET THIS SHOW ON THE ROAD. Or maybe we should just wait for Intel. If Intel was smart they would announce x86-64 tomorrow knowing if we have waited this long, we would wait a liitle longer especially when jobs and money are scarce. Why spend money when you can't use it.

Having read this thread since it's start, I think it's time we go right back
to the start of this thread and figure out what you're actually trying to
say. You're being a bit cryptic about what exactly you're asking here, to
say the least; I think most people are having trouble figuring out your
point. Are you asking whether there are assemblers available for x86-64 (aka
AMD64)? Are you asking whether AMD has published documents about programming
its AMD64? Or are asking whether Intel had the right idea for not embracing
AMD64 yet, because the market isn't there yet?

To answer the questions:
-As others have pointed out to you, there are already plenty of compilers
and assemblers available for AMD64. They are available for Linux & Windows.
-AMD has published plenty of documents in PDF format about the AMD64
instruction set. Just go to www.amd.com.
-I'm not sure what your point about Intel and scarce jobs and money is,
you'll have to explain it to us.

Yousuf Khan

[Michael Pell]

"Yousuf Khan" <removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<jwtfb.209277$Lnr1.35057@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>... "Michael Pell" <m_pell_98037@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:85b1fdf0.0310020439.1db94419@posting.google.com... imho, buying a chip without an assembler is like buying a fuel cell powered car. Since AMD has embraced open source they should just post their assembler source and LETS GET THIS SHOW ON THE ROAD. Or maybe we should just wait for Intel. If Intel was smart they would announce x86-64 tomorrow knowing if we have waited this long, we would wait a liitle longer especially when jobs and money are scarce. Why spend money when you can't use it. Having read this thread since it's start, I think it's time we go right back to the start of this thread and figure out what you're actually trying to say. You're being a bit cryptic about what exactly you're asking here, to say the least; I think most people are having trouble figuring out your point. Are you asking whether there are assemblers available for x86-64 (aka AMD64)? Are you asking whether AMD has published documents about programming its AMD64? Or are asking whether Intel had the right idea for not embracing AMD64 yet, because the market isn't there yet? To answer the questions: -As others have pointed out to you, there are already plenty of compilers and assemblers available for AMD64. They are available for Linux & Windows. -AMD has published plenty of documents in PDF format about the AMD64 instruction set. Just go to www.amd.com. -I'm not sure what your point about Intel and scarce jobs and money is, you'll have to explain it to us. Yousuf Khan

Please give me a url to professional grade x86-64 macro assembler.
From what I've read NASM isn't ready and all I get from YASM is
a window with cursor. Microsoft, Borland don't advertise any and
I think Whatcom disapeared. Why doesn't AMD fill this void.
Right now you'll pay a premium for the motherboard (249.99 in my
neighborhood), memory and cpu. Why not wait 6 months for the premium
to come out of these components.

[Michael Pell]

"Dean Kent" <dkent@realworldtech.com> wrote in message news:<Sssfb.11444$uc.5036@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>... "Michael Pell" <m_pell_98037@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:85b1fdf0.0310030903.39bc4ba0@posting.google.com... I maintain that if you can write microcode you can write a macro assembler. "I do not think that word means what you think it means"...

<<microcode tells the cpu how execute opcode. risc instructions have
none and <<are executed directly.
Wouldn't you co-develop them.

<<what better time to write an assembler
<<than when your creating instruction set and pouring over instruction
timing.
Um - what exactly is it about microcode that makes it so closely related to an assembler?

<< They both require a lot of smarts and going to need it for testing
anyway!
I don't see how AMD, nor the many vendorsrequired, can develop products without a professional grade asembler. I think AMD simply holding out. I'll bet you that MS has a 64-bit assembler for internal use, but they don't see any need to ship it until they have a 64-bit compiler available to the public. I don't think they give a damn about what you (or I) think. (no offense intended). :-).

<<I'm sure. I've been told masm 8 is out there but that msg came with
no url.
Regards, Dean Mike

[Yousuf Khan]

"Michael Pell" <m_pell_98037@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:85b1fdf0.0310040807.11deaff3@posting.google.com... Please give me a url to professional grade x86-64 macro assembler. From what I've read NASM isn't ready and all I get from YASM is a window with cursor. Microsoft, Borland don't advertise any and I think Whatcom disapeared. Why doesn't AMD fill this void. Right now you'll pay a premium for the motherboard (249.99 in my neighborhood), memory and cpu. Why not wait 6 months for the premium to come out of these components.

You seek and you shall receive:

http://www.x86-64.org/downloads

These are the include files for the AMD64 extensions.

Yousuf Khan

[Dean Kent]

"Michael Pell" <m_pell_98037@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:85b1fdf0.0310040828.63f29d26@posting.google.com... <<microcode tells the cpu how execute opcode. risc instructions have none and <<are executed directly.

I am not a CPU architect, but my understanding of things goes something like
this:

Assembler => Machine Instr => Decode => Microcode => Execute

As you mention, the microcode step only applies to those instructions not
hardwired. Now, I again say that I don't think it means what you think it
means. Converting assembler mnemonics into machine code does not seem to be
directly related to converting instructions into macro-ops (or
micro-instructions). IOW, it certainly doesn't seem to me that the same
group of people would be doing both - but I could be wrong...

Regards,
Dean

[Tony Hill]

On 3 Oct 2003 10:03:55 -0700, m_pell_98037@yahoo.com (Michael Pell)
wrote:a macro assembler. Wouldn't you co-develop them.I don't see how AMD, nor the many vendorsrequired,can develop products without a professionalgrade asembler. I think AMD simply holding out.

You mean like what AMD with the GNU AS assembler, where they helped
add AMD64 support to it a couple of years ago?

In short, what in the hell are you talking about?!?!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[Tony Hill]

On 4 Oct 2003 09:07:03 -0700, m_pell_98037@yahoo.com (Michael Pell)
wrote:Please give me a url to professional grade x86-64 macro assembler.

"professional grade" assembler?!?! What is this, 1980?! An assembler
is DEAD SIMPLE! You don't need any "professional grade" stuff here.
A decent IDE? Sure, but that's TOTALLY separate from the assembler
itself. Throw the code in and assemble it.
From what I've read NASM isn't ready and all I get from YASM isa window with cursor.

What the hell do you expect, it's an assembler, not an IDE!
Microsoft, Borland don't advertise any and

Well gee, let's see. Microsoft has not yet released their AMD64
capable operating system yet, yet you expect them to have their AMD64
capable assembler out in the public?
I think Whatcom disapeared. Why doesn't AMD fill this void.

Because they don't need to! It's an assembler dammit, it's NOT some
hugely complicated piece of software, all it needs to do is translate
mnemonics into byte code and replace a few macros and such. GNU AS
does a fine job of this, YASM should work just fine (though I haven't
used it myself). Of course, it's not going to do you any good if you
are running 32-bit Windows.

I'm get the sense that you are stuck in Windows world. In this case,
I'd suggest you either wait a few months until WinXP 64-bit edition is
available, or switch to Linux, where you can code for AMD64 to your
hearts content. Expecting a 64-bit assembler to be marketed publicly
for an operating system that doesn't exist yet is a bit odd.
Right now you'll pay a premium for the motherboard (249.99 in myneighborhood), memory and cpu. Why not wait 6 months for the premiumto come out of these components.

Uhh, and this is somehow news? If you buy a brand new CPU with a
brand new architecture you ALWAYS pay a premium! You pay a BIG
premium for the P4 3.2C GHz processor as well! I don't know about
your neck of the woods, but around here, the Athlon64 3200+ is quite a
bit cheaper than a P4 3.2C GHz, even if you add in the cost of
motherboards. Of course, I wouldn't recommend either unless someone
has a specific need for one or the other since they are the latest and
greatest toys, and therefore you'll pay a premium on them.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

[Yousuf Khan]

"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:07cf8eca60e88547293b69136f2219a6@news.1usenet.com... On 3 Oct 2003 10:03:55 -0700, m_pell_98037@yahoo.com (Michael Pell) wrote:a macro assembler. Wouldn't you co-develop them.I don't see how AMD, nor the many vendorsrequired,can develop products without a professionalgrade asembler. I think AMD simply holding out. You mean like what AMD with the GNU AS assembler, where they helped add AMD64 support to it a couple of years ago? In short, what in the hell are you talking about?!?!

It's hard to decipher him. He's not saying what he means.

Yousuf Khan

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <85b1fdf0.0310040828.63f29d26@posting.google.com>,
m_pell_98037@yahoo.com says... "Dean Kent" <dkent@realworldtech.com> wrote in message news:<Sssfb.11444$uc.5036@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>... "Michael Pell" <m_pell_98037@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:85b1fdf0.0310030903.39bc4ba0@posting.google.com... I maintain that if you can write microcode you can write a macro assembler. "I do not think that word means what you think it means"... <<microcode tells the cpu how execute opcode. risc instructions have none and <<are executed directly.

For small definitions of "RISC". I suppose the Power4/PPC970 is
a CISC processor? By your definition it certainly isn't "RISC".
Wouldn't you co-develop them. <<what better time to write an assembler <<than when your creating instruction set and pouring over instruction timing.

Huh?
Um - what exactly is it about microcode that makes it so closely related to an assembler? << They both require a lot of smarts and going to need it for testing anyway!

Nonsense.

--
Keith

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <pLKfb.11780$ld1.856@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
dkent@realworldtech.com says... "Michael Pell" <m_pell_98037@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:85b1fdf0.0310040828.63f29d26@posting.google.com... <<microcode tells the cpu how execute opcode. risc instructions have none and <<are executed directly. I am not a CPU architect, but my understanding of things goes something like this: Assembler => Machine Instr => Decode => Microcode => Execute

This is pretty much the super-scalar model. There is also the
possibility of one (or more) of the above left out. Some 360s
(mod 75 in particular) had no microcode. It could be argued that
simple scalar machines (808x->P5) don't have a decode, (I.e.
don't decode into smaller OPs) rather the instructions are a
pointer into microcode PLA. I'd propose that a VLIW processor
may skip all the intermediate steps, where the compiler produces
the "executable" directly.
As you mention, the microcode step only applies to those instructions not hardwired. Now, I again say that I don't think it means what you think it means. Converting assembler mnemonics into machine code does not seem to be directly related to converting instructions into macro-ops (or micro-instructions). IOW, it certainly doesn't seem to me that the same group of people would be doing both - but I could be wrong...

....or not. ;-)

The decode/execution of machine instructions is processor
dependent. The assembler is architecture dependent.

--
Keith

[Michael Pell]

Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<9f0c7c0b9b8c6ab862dea2e22aee874e@news.1usenet.com>... On 4 Oct 2003 09:07:03 -0700, m_pell_98037@yahoo.com (Michael Pell) wrote:Please give me a url to professional grade x86-64 macro assembler. "professional grade" assembler?!?! What is this, 1980?! An assembler is DEAD SIMPLE! You don't need any "professional grade" stuff here. A decent IDE? Sure, but that's TOTALLY separate from the assembler itself. Throw the code in and assemble it.From what I've read NASM isn't ready and all I get from YASM isa window with cursor. What the hell do you expect, it's an assembler, not an IDE! Microsoft, Borland don't advertise any and Well gee, let's see. Microsoft has not yet released their AMD64 capable operating system yet, yet you expect them to have their AMD64 capable assembler out in the public?I think Whatcom disapeared. Why doesn't AMD fill this void. Because they don't need to! It's an assembler dammit, it's NOT some hugely complicated piece of software, all it needs to do is translate mnemonics into byte code and replace a few macros and such. GNU AS does a fine job of this, YASM should work just fine (though I haven't used it myself). Of course, it's not going to do you any good if you are running 32-bit Windows. I'm get the sense that you are stuck in Windows world. In this case, I'd suggest you either wait a few months until WinXP 64-bit edition is available, or switch to Linux, where you can code for AMD64 to your hearts content. Expecting a 64-bit assembler to be marketed publicly for an operating system that doesn't exist yet is a bit odd. Right now you'll pay a premium for the motherboard (249.99 in myneighborhood), memory and cpu. Why not wait 6 months for the premiumto come out of these components. Uhh, and this is somehow news? If you buy a brand new CPU with a brand new architecture you ALWAYS pay a premium! You pay a BIG premium for the P4 3.2C GHz processor as well! I don't know about your neck of the woods, but around here, the Athlon64 3200+ is quite a bit cheaper than a P4 3.2C GHz, even if you add in the cost of motherboards. Of course, I wouldn't recommend either unless someone has a specific need for one or the other since they are the latest and greatest toys, and therefore you'll pay a premium on them. ------------- Tony Hill hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Your right, the IDE is a very big piece.
A kind person at the x86 group provided this. ftp://ftp.sandpile.org/ml64.zip
Mike

[Scott Alfter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <jwtfb.209277$Lnr1.35057@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
Yousuf Khan <removethisspam.bjsk90.removethispam@hotmail.com> wrote:-AMD has published plenty of documents in PDF format about the AMD64instruction set. Just go to www.amd.com.

You can even get them in dead-tree format...got back from vacation this
morning to find a good-sized box sitting on my desk. The five volumes take
up about 4.5" of shelf space and cost nothing to obtain. (Somebody posted a
link on the AnandTech hot-deals forum a while back, but a few minutes
digging around in the developer area on AMD's website should get you where
you need to go.)

_/_ Scott Alfter (address in header doesn't receive mail)
/ v \ send email to $firstname@$lastname.us
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ pkill -9 /bin/laden >What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Linux)

iD8DBQE/itZxVgTKos01OwkRAoV7AKDvkpmqbgRdBD9/LYX36U9nSlUqQQCgmo7Z
T9AoY6p5eTxP/bUDrHDBSvE=
=ZHkc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----