home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
- Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!gordonl
- From: gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin)
- Subject: Re: Portable?
- Message-ID: <1992Jul21.225048.4454@microsoft.com>
- Date: 21 Jul 92 22:50:48 GMT
- Organization: Microsoft Corporation
- References: <1992Jul9.222215.19296@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> <1992Jul11.001318.15210@microsoft.com> <wiegand.711122759@lido16>
- Distribution: comp
- Lines: 19
-
- In article <wiegand.711122759@lido16> motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net writes:
- >
- >Asm. code thats in anything used for 80X86 specific stuff shouldn't be
- >counted. You wouldn't use this stuff when you port to another processor
- >anywhy.
-
- True, in general. But most of the code that you get to discard has
- it's equivalent for the other processor. So you don't have to manage
- the 386's page tables, but you do have to manage someone else's page tables...
- So the amount of ASM is still a reasonable measure of porting effort.
-
- In fact, it's faster to port stuff that's just in ASM because of speed
- issues then it is to rewrite stuff for a new environment; rewriting introduces
- all new bugs, whereas just transcoding stuff avoids many of the bugs you'd
- get from all new code.
-
- Gordon Letwin
- not a spokesperson for anyone
-
-