You must have been a philosophy major. From a purists standpoint,
toggling in the boot code would be the way to go. But every startup code
I ever did was with a cross-assembler/compiler. You tend to get the job
done quicker that way.
In article <slrnfuo8qv.i85.bit-bucket@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Allodoxaphobia <bit-bucket@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:40:57 -0400, John W. Kennedy wrote:
> > Brian wrote:
> >> I've heard of a level of assembly language called Machine-Level
> >> Assembly Language. What is Machine-Level Assembly Language?
> >
> > The obvious alternative would be microcode-level assembly, but without
a
> > context, I can only guess.
>
> To the OP:
> I don't believe there is a class of assembly language called
> "Machine-Level Assembly Language". There is machine level coding --
> where you would actually toggle the code into the machines via front
> panel switches (e.g., the Sys/360 and PDP-8), and/or coding the
> instruction stream directly in hex (Sys/360) or octal (PDP-8) and
> somehow transcribe that to a media (Hollerith cards: Sys/360 or
> paper tape: PDP-8) and use a `loader` to suck in the code and lay it
down
> in memory.
>
> When you get to "Assembly Language", you require some sort of compiler
> to decode/encode the almost-english-like instruction mnemonics into the
> actual binary encoding usable by the target machine.
>
> Then there's the topic of Relocatability.........
>
> Jonesy -- Sys/360, et.al., assembler coding from 1966 to 1999.
|
