Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 08:53:41 08/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
Ok Vincent, I am waiting for (1) Where I wrote that NT kernel haz *zero* assembler in it? Of course it has some -- in task switching, in interrupt handling, in CRT, etc. But that is 0.1% of total *kernel* size, much less of total NT size. So for all means, including maintainance and porting to other architectures, it is written in C/C++. (2) I am still waiting for proof that some DLL is written in the assembler. I didn't see it, or probably I did not understand... Thanks, Eugene On August 06, 2003 at 07:09:09, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 05, 2003 at 04:58:39, Bo Persson wrote: > >Eugenes first posting suggested there is ZERO assembly inside: > >Later postings he has come back to that when he finally checked out some >of the source code. I wonder how a compiler department could possibly access >x86 source code of the NT kernel. I bet they do not have it there at his >itanium department... > >----------------------------------------------------------- > >Posted by Eugene Nalimov (Profile) on August 03, 2003 at 16:52:17: > >In Reply to: glory of windows posted by Vincent Diepeveen on August 03, 2003 at >15:22:19: > > >Sorry, I'll be clearer this time: > >(Talking about claim that Windows kernel is written in the assembler) > >SARCASM ON: > >This is definitely so, especially if you take into account that NT/2k/XP >variants were commercially sold not only for x86, but for PowerPC, MIPS, Alpha, >and IA-64 CPUs. Of course MS wrote 5 kernels in the different assembler >languages... > >SARCASM OFF. > >Vincent is the only source from which I hear that fact. And if I have to choose >between Vincent's words and NT source code on one of my developer's machine, >I'll trust the later... > >Thanks, >Eugene > >Thanks, >Eugene > > > > >>On August 04, 2003 at 11:26:36, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On August 04, 2003 at 09:43:40, Bo Persson wrote: >>> >>>>Ok, we agree that there is "some assembly required". I can see that it might be >>>>0.1%, or 0.5%. or even 1.0% of the code base. I wouldn't call that "so much", or >>>>see that it would be a problem to move it to x86-64 when they have already tried >>>>it out for Alpha, Itanium, and others. >>>> >>>>If you think otherwise, fine. >>> >>>you are just guessing a % here. the entire kernel is assembly though. >> >>Yes, I am just guessing here. Unlike Eugene I don't have the source at hand. >> >>Let's call it an "estimate", and not a guess. You pointed out that kernel32.dll >>didn't look like C code. I don't know that, but can see that it is a small file >>and even though it contains a lot of text resources, it is still only 0.1% of >>the total file sizes of my /winnt directory. >> >>So I made a guess, that maybe even 5 or 10 times that much could be assembly >>code. It would still be no more than 1% of the total size. I don't call that >>"much", or "the entire kernel". >> >>> >>>let's be clear. i'm not saying that the entire kernel being assembly is a >>>problem to move it. seemingly reading nalimov's words correctly they have a C >>>version too, which for the itanium i can consider as being a good idea. writing >>>assembly for it is a horror. >>> >>>For the x86-64 i bet they want an assembly version too, because the platform is >>>going to be very important. >> >>Or they could make sure that they have one of the best compilers available. >>Guess what Eugene is working on. :-) >> >> >>I once got my first copy of the MS C compiler with the Windows 1.0 beta. Wonder >>why! >> >> >>> >>>linux does not have such problems. there is hardly software working for it! >> >>:-) >> >> >>Bo Persson >>bop2@telia.com
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.