Assembly writer vs compiler in VLIW architectureConversion from assembly program to low-level machine languageWhat do I need to study in order to understand and design a programming language?What defines a tool as a “compiler”is the problem of parallelising any program, NP-complete?What's the advantage of typed assembly?Implementing a Compiler with MacrosThe difference between compiler and interpreterIs it possible to tell if two sequences of assembly instructions are semantically equivalent?High Level Assemblers vs Compilers?Do “compiler” and “assembler” correspond to frontend and backend phases of a compiler?

How do you deal with an abrupt change in personality for a protagonist?

How to extract lower and upper bound in numeric format from a confidence interval string?

Can a Beholder use rays in melee range?

Why colon to denote that a value belongs to a type?

Were pen cap holes designed to prevent death by suffocation if swallowed?

Simple linked list with two iterators

Different PCB color ( is it different material? )

Inverter Power draw from 12V battery

Is this story about US tax office reasonable?

What does the behaviour of water on the skin of an aircraft in flight tell us?

How to prevent bad sectors?

Apparent Ring of Craters on the Moon

How were these pictures of spacecraft wind tunnel testing taken?

Infinitely many hats

Why does the 6502 have the BIT instruction?

What is the difference between nullifying your vote and not going to vote at all?

Modern approach to radio buttons

What caused the tendency for conservatives to not support climate change reform?

Draw a checker pattern with a black X in the center

Restoring order in a deck of playing cards

Plot exactly N bounce of a ball

Where did the “Vikings wear helmets with horn” stereotype come from and why?

What is the best linguistic term for describing the kw > p / gw > b change, and its usual companion s > h

What's the connection between "kicking a pigeon" and "how a bill becomes a law"?



Assembly writer vs compiler in VLIW architecture


Conversion from assembly program to low-level machine languageWhat do I need to study in order to understand and design a programming language?What defines a tool as a “compiler”is the problem of parallelising any program, NP-complete?What's the advantage of typed assembly?Implementing a Compiler with MacrosThe difference between compiler and interpreterIs it possible to tell if two sequences of assembly instructions are semantically equivalent?High Level Assemblers vs Compilers?Do “compiler” and “assembler” correspond to frontend and backend phases of a compiler?













8












$begingroup$


I read this sentence in a book:




In VLIW architecture, the compiler/and or assembly writer chooses instructions that can be executed in parallel.




What is the difference between assembly writer and compiler? Would an assembly writer also mean the same as assembler?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    8












    $begingroup$


    I read this sentence in a book:




    In VLIW architecture, the compiler/and or assembly writer chooses instructions that can be executed in parallel.




    What is the difference between assembly writer and compiler? Would an assembly writer also mean the same as assembler?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      8












      8








      8


      2



      $begingroup$


      I read this sentence in a book:




      In VLIW architecture, the compiler/and or assembly writer chooses instructions that can be executed in parallel.




      What is the difference between assembly writer and compiler? Would an assembly writer also mean the same as assembler?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I read this sentence in a book:




      In VLIW architecture, the compiler/and or assembly writer chooses instructions that can be executed in parallel.




      What is the difference between assembly writer and compiler? Would an assembly writer also mean the same as assembler?







      compilers assembly






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited May 15 at 5:11









      Discrete lizard

      5,10311642




      5,10311642










      asked May 14 at 5:02









      Dasha ShamDasha Sham

      435




      435




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          32












          $begingroup$

          The "assembly writer" in that book is a human software developer who writes code in assembler language.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$








          • 15




            $begingroup$
            1. interpreter doesn't convert anything to assembly language. 2. Any tool that converts source code to assembly language is by definition a compiler.
            $endgroup$
            – gnasher729
            May 14 at 7:10






          • 4




            $begingroup$
            @KellyS.French an assembler converts assembly language code to machine code, so with this definition it isn't a compiler. If, however, you have a tool that converts one assembly language into another (e.g. ARBfp1.0 to native assembly language of a modern GPU), this tool is a compiler (with this definition).
            $endgroup$
            – Ruslan
            May 14 at 19:38







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @gnasher729 - nitpick: by most definitions, the "Assembly language" part of (2) is unnecessary (notably, things like the typescript compiler or the java compiler, neither of which compile the source to assembly, but compile to javascript or java bytecode respectively). More recently it generally means any tool which compiles one programming language into another programming language (and assembly is technically a programming language).
            $endgroup$
            – Delioth
            May 14 at 21:11






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @KellyS.French: A compiler is a program that translates a program in language X into a semantically equivalent program in language Y. Depending on what exactly the languages X and Y are, we have special names for those compilers, and "assembler" is one of those special names. But they are all special kinds of compilers. E.g. if Y = assembly and X is higher-level than Y, then we call it an assembler. If Y = assembly and X is lower-level than Y, we call it a disassembler. If X is lower-level than Y and Y != assembly, we call it a de-compiler. If X and Y are the same level, recent usage would …
            $endgroup$
            – Jörg W Mittag
            May 15 at 12:48







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @KellyS.French: I guess the reason why assemblers aren't typically talked about much in terms of compilers is that assemblers are very boring compilers. At its core, an assembler is just a 1:1 mapping of human-readable mnemonics to machine-readable opcodes. The parsing stage is simple, there are no types, there are no optimizations, the code generation is trivial. None of the interesting algorithmitic stuff that compilers do is present: parsing a complex language, type checking, type inference, optimizations, clever mapping of semantics etc.
            $endgroup$
            – Jörg W Mittag
            May 16 at 5:10


















          9












          $begingroup$


          In VLIW architecture, the compiler/and or assembly writer chooses instructions that can be executed in parallel




          The meaning of this sentence is that in VLIW architecture, assembler (machine) code defines which instruction will be executed in parallel, so it's fixed at the time assembly code is written by a human or generated by a compiler.



          This differs from super-scalar cpus, where instructions may be executed in parallel, this is a decision made by CPU each time it executes the instructions.



          There are also CPUs that combine both approaches - Itanium2 is backward-compatible with Itanium, packing 3 instructions into VLIW word. But, afair, Itanium2 can execute two such packs in the single CPU cycle, and this decision is made at execution time.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "419"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f109326%2fassembly-writer-vs-compiler-in-vliw-architecture%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            32












            $begingroup$

            The "assembly writer" in that book is a human software developer who writes code in assembler language.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$








            • 15




              $begingroup$
              1. interpreter doesn't convert anything to assembly language. 2. Any tool that converts source code to assembly language is by definition a compiler.
              $endgroup$
              – gnasher729
              May 14 at 7:10






            • 4




              $begingroup$
              @KellyS.French an assembler converts assembly language code to machine code, so with this definition it isn't a compiler. If, however, you have a tool that converts one assembly language into another (e.g. ARBfp1.0 to native assembly language of a modern GPU), this tool is a compiler (with this definition).
              $endgroup$
              – Ruslan
              May 14 at 19:38







            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @gnasher729 - nitpick: by most definitions, the "Assembly language" part of (2) is unnecessary (notably, things like the typescript compiler or the java compiler, neither of which compile the source to assembly, but compile to javascript or java bytecode respectively). More recently it generally means any tool which compiles one programming language into another programming language (and assembly is technically a programming language).
              $endgroup$
              – Delioth
              May 14 at 21:11






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @KellyS.French: A compiler is a program that translates a program in language X into a semantically equivalent program in language Y. Depending on what exactly the languages X and Y are, we have special names for those compilers, and "assembler" is one of those special names. But they are all special kinds of compilers. E.g. if Y = assembly and X is higher-level than Y, then we call it an assembler. If Y = assembly and X is lower-level than Y, we call it a disassembler. If X is lower-level than Y and Y != assembly, we call it a de-compiler. If X and Y are the same level, recent usage would …
              $endgroup$
              – Jörg W Mittag
              May 15 at 12:48







            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @KellyS.French: I guess the reason why assemblers aren't typically talked about much in terms of compilers is that assemblers are very boring compilers. At its core, an assembler is just a 1:1 mapping of human-readable mnemonics to machine-readable opcodes. The parsing stage is simple, there are no types, there are no optimizations, the code generation is trivial. None of the interesting algorithmitic stuff that compilers do is present: parsing a complex language, type checking, type inference, optimizations, clever mapping of semantics etc.
              $endgroup$
              – Jörg W Mittag
              May 16 at 5:10















            32












            $begingroup$

            The "assembly writer" in that book is a human software developer who writes code in assembler language.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$








            • 15




              $begingroup$
              1. interpreter doesn't convert anything to assembly language. 2. Any tool that converts source code to assembly language is by definition a compiler.
              $endgroup$
              – gnasher729
              May 14 at 7:10






            • 4




              $begingroup$
              @KellyS.French an assembler converts assembly language code to machine code, so with this definition it isn't a compiler. If, however, you have a tool that converts one assembly language into another (e.g. ARBfp1.0 to native assembly language of a modern GPU), this tool is a compiler (with this definition).
              $endgroup$
              – Ruslan
              May 14 at 19:38







            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @gnasher729 - nitpick: by most definitions, the "Assembly language" part of (2) is unnecessary (notably, things like the typescript compiler or the java compiler, neither of which compile the source to assembly, but compile to javascript or java bytecode respectively). More recently it generally means any tool which compiles one programming language into another programming language (and assembly is technically a programming language).
              $endgroup$
              – Delioth
              May 14 at 21:11






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @KellyS.French: A compiler is a program that translates a program in language X into a semantically equivalent program in language Y. Depending on what exactly the languages X and Y are, we have special names for those compilers, and "assembler" is one of those special names. But they are all special kinds of compilers. E.g. if Y = assembly and X is higher-level than Y, then we call it an assembler. If Y = assembly and X is lower-level than Y, we call it a disassembler. If X is lower-level than Y and Y != assembly, we call it a de-compiler. If X and Y are the same level, recent usage would …
              $endgroup$
              – Jörg W Mittag
              May 15 at 12:48







            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @KellyS.French: I guess the reason why assemblers aren't typically talked about much in terms of compilers is that assemblers are very boring compilers. At its core, an assembler is just a 1:1 mapping of human-readable mnemonics to machine-readable opcodes. The parsing stage is simple, there are no types, there are no optimizations, the code generation is trivial. None of the interesting algorithmitic stuff that compilers do is present: parsing a complex language, type checking, type inference, optimizations, clever mapping of semantics etc.
              $endgroup$
              – Jörg W Mittag
              May 16 at 5:10













            32












            32








            32





            $begingroup$

            The "assembly writer" in that book is a human software developer who writes code in assembler language.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            The "assembly writer" in that book is a human software developer who writes code in assembler language.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered May 14 at 6:30









            gnasher729gnasher729

            13.3k1824




            13.3k1824







            • 15




              $begingroup$
              1. interpreter doesn't convert anything to assembly language. 2. Any tool that converts source code to assembly language is by definition a compiler.
              $endgroup$
              – gnasher729
              May 14 at 7:10






            • 4




              $begingroup$
              @KellyS.French an assembler converts assembly language code to machine code, so with this definition it isn't a compiler. If, however, you have a tool that converts one assembly language into another (e.g. ARBfp1.0 to native assembly language of a modern GPU), this tool is a compiler (with this definition).
              $endgroup$
              – Ruslan
              May 14 at 19:38







            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @gnasher729 - nitpick: by most definitions, the "Assembly language" part of (2) is unnecessary (notably, things like the typescript compiler or the java compiler, neither of which compile the source to assembly, but compile to javascript or java bytecode respectively). More recently it generally means any tool which compiles one programming language into another programming language (and assembly is technically a programming language).
              $endgroup$
              – Delioth
              May 14 at 21:11






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @KellyS.French: A compiler is a program that translates a program in language X into a semantically equivalent program in language Y. Depending on what exactly the languages X and Y are, we have special names for those compilers, and "assembler" is one of those special names. But they are all special kinds of compilers. E.g. if Y = assembly and X is higher-level than Y, then we call it an assembler. If Y = assembly and X is lower-level than Y, we call it a disassembler. If X is lower-level than Y and Y != assembly, we call it a de-compiler. If X and Y are the same level, recent usage would …
              $endgroup$
              – Jörg W Mittag
              May 15 at 12:48







            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @KellyS.French: I guess the reason why assemblers aren't typically talked about much in terms of compilers is that assemblers are very boring compilers. At its core, an assembler is just a 1:1 mapping of human-readable mnemonics to machine-readable opcodes. The parsing stage is simple, there are no types, there are no optimizations, the code generation is trivial. None of the interesting algorithmitic stuff that compilers do is present: parsing a complex language, type checking, type inference, optimizations, clever mapping of semantics etc.
              $endgroup$
              – Jörg W Mittag
              May 16 at 5:10












            • 15




              $begingroup$
              1. interpreter doesn't convert anything to assembly language. 2. Any tool that converts source code to assembly language is by definition a compiler.
              $endgroup$
              – gnasher729
              May 14 at 7:10






            • 4




              $begingroup$
              @KellyS.French an assembler converts assembly language code to machine code, so with this definition it isn't a compiler. If, however, you have a tool that converts one assembly language into another (e.g. ARBfp1.0 to native assembly language of a modern GPU), this tool is a compiler (with this definition).
              $endgroup$
              – Ruslan
              May 14 at 19:38







            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @gnasher729 - nitpick: by most definitions, the "Assembly language" part of (2) is unnecessary (notably, things like the typescript compiler or the java compiler, neither of which compile the source to assembly, but compile to javascript or java bytecode respectively). More recently it generally means any tool which compiles one programming language into another programming language (and assembly is technically a programming language).
              $endgroup$
              – Delioth
              May 14 at 21:11






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @KellyS.French: A compiler is a program that translates a program in language X into a semantically equivalent program in language Y. Depending on what exactly the languages X and Y are, we have special names for those compilers, and "assembler" is one of those special names. But they are all special kinds of compilers. E.g. if Y = assembly and X is higher-level than Y, then we call it an assembler. If Y = assembly and X is lower-level than Y, we call it a disassembler. If X is lower-level than Y and Y != assembly, we call it a de-compiler. If X and Y are the same level, recent usage would …
              $endgroup$
              – Jörg W Mittag
              May 15 at 12:48







            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @KellyS.French: I guess the reason why assemblers aren't typically talked about much in terms of compilers is that assemblers are very boring compilers. At its core, an assembler is just a 1:1 mapping of human-readable mnemonics to machine-readable opcodes. The parsing stage is simple, there are no types, there are no optimizations, the code generation is trivial. None of the interesting algorithmitic stuff that compilers do is present: parsing a complex language, type checking, type inference, optimizations, clever mapping of semantics etc.
              $endgroup$
              – Jörg W Mittag
              May 16 at 5:10







            15




            15




            $begingroup$
            1. interpreter doesn't convert anything to assembly language. 2. Any tool that converts source code to assembly language is by definition a compiler.
            $endgroup$
            – gnasher729
            May 14 at 7:10




            $begingroup$
            1. interpreter doesn't convert anything to assembly language. 2. Any tool that converts source code to assembly language is by definition a compiler.
            $endgroup$
            – gnasher729
            May 14 at 7:10




            4




            4




            $begingroup$
            @KellyS.French an assembler converts assembly language code to machine code, so with this definition it isn't a compiler. If, however, you have a tool that converts one assembly language into another (e.g. ARBfp1.0 to native assembly language of a modern GPU), this tool is a compiler (with this definition).
            $endgroup$
            – Ruslan
            May 14 at 19:38





            $begingroup$
            @KellyS.French an assembler converts assembly language code to machine code, so with this definition it isn't a compiler. If, however, you have a tool that converts one assembly language into another (e.g. ARBfp1.0 to native assembly language of a modern GPU), this tool is a compiler (with this definition).
            $endgroup$
            – Ruslan
            May 14 at 19:38





            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            @gnasher729 - nitpick: by most definitions, the "Assembly language" part of (2) is unnecessary (notably, things like the typescript compiler or the java compiler, neither of which compile the source to assembly, but compile to javascript or java bytecode respectively). More recently it generally means any tool which compiles one programming language into another programming language (and assembly is technically a programming language).
            $endgroup$
            – Delioth
            May 14 at 21:11




            $begingroup$
            @gnasher729 - nitpick: by most definitions, the "Assembly language" part of (2) is unnecessary (notably, things like the typescript compiler or the java compiler, neither of which compile the source to assembly, but compile to javascript or java bytecode respectively). More recently it generally means any tool which compiles one programming language into another programming language (and assembly is technically a programming language).
            $endgroup$
            – Delioth
            May 14 at 21:11




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            @KellyS.French: A compiler is a program that translates a program in language X into a semantically equivalent program in language Y. Depending on what exactly the languages X and Y are, we have special names for those compilers, and "assembler" is one of those special names. But they are all special kinds of compilers. E.g. if Y = assembly and X is higher-level than Y, then we call it an assembler. If Y = assembly and X is lower-level than Y, we call it a disassembler. If X is lower-level than Y and Y != assembly, we call it a de-compiler. If X and Y are the same level, recent usage would …
            $endgroup$
            – Jörg W Mittag
            May 15 at 12:48





            $begingroup$
            @KellyS.French: A compiler is a program that translates a program in language X into a semantically equivalent program in language Y. Depending on what exactly the languages X and Y are, we have special names for those compilers, and "assembler" is one of those special names. But they are all special kinds of compilers. E.g. if Y = assembly and X is higher-level than Y, then we call it an assembler. If Y = assembly and X is lower-level than Y, we call it a disassembler. If X is lower-level than Y and Y != assembly, we call it a de-compiler. If X and Y are the same level, recent usage would …
            $endgroup$
            – Jörg W Mittag
            May 15 at 12:48





            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            @KellyS.French: I guess the reason why assemblers aren't typically talked about much in terms of compilers is that assemblers are very boring compilers. At its core, an assembler is just a 1:1 mapping of human-readable mnemonics to machine-readable opcodes. The parsing stage is simple, there are no types, there are no optimizations, the code generation is trivial. None of the interesting algorithmitic stuff that compilers do is present: parsing a complex language, type checking, type inference, optimizations, clever mapping of semantics etc.
            $endgroup$
            – Jörg W Mittag
            May 16 at 5:10




            $begingroup$
            @KellyS.French: I guess the reason why assemblers aren't typically talked about much in terms of compilers is that assemblers are very boring compilers. At its core, an assembler is just a 1:1 mapping of human-readable mnemonics to machine-readable opcodes. The parsing stage is simple, there are no types, there are no optimizations, the code generation is trivial. None of the interesting algorithmitic stuff that compilers do is present: parsing a complex language, type checking, type inference, optimizations, clever mapping of semantics etc.
            $endgroup$
            – Jörg W Mittag
            May 16 at 5:10











            9












            $begingroup$


            In VLIW architecture, the compiler/and or assembly writer chooses instructions that can be executed in parallel




            The meaning of this sentence is that in VLIW architecture, assembler (machine) code defines which instruction will be executed in parallel, so it's fixed at the time assembly code is written by a human or generated by a compiler.



            This differs from super-scalar cpus, where instructions may be executed in parallel, this is a decision made by CPU each time it executes the instructions.



            There are also CPUs that combine both approaches - Itanium2 is backward-compatible with Itanium, packing 3 instructions into VLIW word. But, afair, Itanium2 can execute two such packs in the single CPU cycle, and this decision is made at execution time.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$

















              9












              $begingroup$


              In VLIW architecture, the compiler/and or assembly writer chooses instructions that can be executed in parallel




              The meaning of this sentence is that in VLIW architecture, assembler (machine) code defines which instruction will be executed in parallel, so it's fixed at the time assembly code is written by a human or generated by a compiler.



              This differs from super-scalar cpus, where instructions may be executed in parallel, this is a decision made by CPU each time it executes the instructions.



              There are also CPUs that combine both approaches - Itanium2 is backward-compatible with Itanium, packing 3 instructions into VLIW word. But, afair, Itanium2 can execute two such packs in the single CPU cycle, and this decision is made at execution time.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$















                9












                9








                9





                $begingroup$


                In VLIW architecture, the compiler/and or assembly writer chooses instructions that can be executed in parallel




                The meaning of this sentence is that in VLIW architecture, assembler (machine) code defines which instruction will be executed in parallel, so it's fixed at the time assembly code is written by a human or generated by a compiler.



                This differs from super-scalar cpus, where instructions may be executed in parallel, this is a decision made by CPU each time it executes the instructions.



                There are also CPUs that combine both approaches - Itanium2 is backward-compatible with Itanium, packing 3 instructions into VLIW word. But, afair, Itanium2 can execute two such packs in the single CPU cycle, and this decision is made at execution time.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$




                In VLIW architecture, the compiler/and or assembly writer chooses instructions that can be executed in parallel




                The meaning of this sentence is that in VLIW architecture, assembler (machine) code defines which instruction will be executed in parallel, so it's fixed at the time assembly code is written by a human or generated by a compiler.



                This differs from super-scalar cpus, where instructions may be executed in parallel, this is a decision made by CPU each time it executes the instructions.



                There are also CPUs that combine both approaches - Itanium2 is backward-compatible with Itanium, packing 3 instructions into VLIW word. But, afair, Itanium2 can execute two such packs in the single CPU cycle, and this decision is made at execution time.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered May 14 at 7:29









                BulatBulat

                1,231612




                1,231612



























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Computer Science Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f109326%2fassembly-writer-vs-compiler-in-vliw-architecture%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    How to write a 12-bar blues melodyI-IV-V blues progressionHow to play the bridges in a standard blues progressionHow does Gdim7 fit in C# minor?question on a certain chord progressionMusicology of Melody12 bar blues, spread rhythm: alternative to 6th chord to avoid finger stretchChord progressions/ Root key/ MelodiesHow to put chords (POP-EDM) under a given lead vocal melody (starting from a good knowledge in music theory)Are there “rules” for improvising with the minor pentatonic scale over 12-bar shuffle?Confusion about blues scale and chords

                    What if the end-user didn't have the required library?What is setup.py?What is a clean, pythonic way to have multiple constructors in Python?What does Ruby have that Python doesn't, and vice versa?What is the reason for having '//' in Python?How do I create a namespace package in Python?How to package shared objects that python modules depend on?setuptools vs. distutils: why is distutils still a thing?Navigation in Windows 10 vs code not going to virtualenv library when the same library is installed at user levelPython create package for local usePackaging a project that uses multiple python versionsWhy is permission denied on pip install except for when “--user” is included at end of command?

                    Why did Thanos need his ship to help him in the battle scene?Which actor plays Thanos in the Avengers mid-credits scene?Are there economic implications portrayed in comics where the buildings and cities are ruined almost daily?Old X-Men comic where team travels to alien world with a ring-like sun that needs recharging?Why does Ego need help sleeping?Is there an objective answer to who “the strongest Avenger” is?How did Banner get unstuck?Why did Thanos get hit?How did Thanos (or anyone) know the Infinity Stones would give him this power?Did Thanos leave Eitri alive for his after-sales service?In Avengers 1, why does Thanos need Loki?