Is Epsilon transformation language (ETL) interpreted or compiled language?
ETL is an interpreted language. Quoting the respective Epsilon FAQ:
All Epsilon languages are interpreted. With the exception of EGL templates which are transformed into EOL before execution, all other languages are supported by bespoke interpreters.
Related
I was reading "The Art of Unix Programming" book and I found a quote saying :
In the Unix world, libraries which are delivered as libraries should come with exerciser programs.
So what exactly is a library exerciser?
A library exerciser is simply a program, or a collection of programs, that is testing that library (by calling some, or most, and ideally all public functions or methods of that library). Read also about unit testing.
BTW, this advice to make library exercisers is IMHO not specific to the Unix world (it should also hold for GNU Hurd, POSIX, VMS and even Windows systems), but generally useful for any software library. I guess it is related to modules and names in linkers. In some exotic, but interesting, programming environments (think of Lisp or Smalltalk machines, or persistent academic OSes like Grasshopper) the very notion of library does not exist, or is so far from Linux-like libraries (written in C or C++) that exercisers might not mean the same thing... ....
Notice that some languages (Ocaml, Go, D, ... but not C11 or C++14) might know some notion of modules and have a module-aware notion of libraries
Which programming languages provide the best support for self-modifying code?
In particular, since the program will need to make extensive use of self-modifying code, I am looking forward at the ability to remove from memory some parts of code, after they are no longer needed, thus freeing that memory. Also, it would be a plus if there was the ability to identify and index the routines (procedures, functions, etc) with some sort of serial number, so that they could be easily managed in the memory (deleted, cloned etc) at runtime.
Operating systems need to have some more-or-less "self-modifying code" in order to load programs and dynamic link libraries from storage into RAM and later free up that RAM for other things, do relocation fix-ups, etc.
My understanding is that currently the C programming language is by far the most popular language for writing an operating systems.
The OSDev.org wiki has many tips of writing a new custom operating system, including a brief discussion of languages suitable for writing an operating system -- C, Assembly language, Lisp, Forth, C++, C#, PL/1, etc.
Just-in-time (JIT) compilers also need to have some more-or-less "self-modifying code" to compile source text into native instructions and run them, then later free up that memory for the next hot-spot.
Perhaps you could find some OS project or JIT project and use their code with relatively little modification.
A few people, when they say they want "self-modifying code", really want a language that supports homoiconicity such Scheme or some other dialect of Lisp, Prolog, TCL, Curl, etc.
I cannot find anything just explaining the syntax of the intermediate language. Does anybody know of any good documentation?
AFAIK, nothing called "OpenCL intermediate language" exists. There are vendor-specific intermediate languages used by some OpenCL implementations (such as NVIDIA's PTX and AMD's IL).
There is also the "Standard Portable Intermediate Representation" (SPIR) specification from Khronos which aims to be a cross-platform intermediate representation for OpenCL device code.
Is there a standard that defines the syntax and semantics of assembly language? Similarly as language C has ISO standard and language C# has ECMA standard? Is there only one standard, or are there more of them?
I'm asking because I noticed that assembly language code looked different on Windows and Linux environment. I hoped that assembly language is not dependent on OS, that it's only language with some defined standard and via assembler (compiler of assembly language) is translated into machine instructions for particular processor.
thank you for answer
Yes, there is a standard.
People that built assemblers even up til the 1980s chose an incredible variety of syntax schemes.
The IEEE community reacted with a standard to try to avoid that problem:
694-1985 - IEEE Standard for Microprocessor Assembly Language
As with many things in the software world, it was and continues to be largely ignored.
The closest thing to a standard is that the vendor that created the processor/instruction set will have a document describing that language and often that vendor will provide some sort of an assembler (program). Some vendors are more detail and standard oriented than others so you get what you get. Then things like this intel/at&t happen to mess things up. Add to that gnu assembler loves to mess up the assembly language for the chips it supports as well so in general you have chaos.
If there were an assembly language whose use were comparable to C or C++ then you would expect an organization to try to come up with a standard. Part of the problem would still be that with things like the C language there is an interpretation before it hits the hardware, with assembler there is none to very little so a chip vendor is going to make whatever they want to make due to market factors and the standard would have to be dragged along to match the hardware, instead of the other way around where a standard drives the vendors.
The opencore processor might be one that could be standards driven since it is not vendor specific, perhaps it is already.
With assembly assume that each version of each assembler program/software/tool has its own syntax rules within the same instruction set as well as across different instruction sets. (which is actually what you get with C/C++ but that is another topic) either choose your favorite tool and only know it, or try to memorize all the variations across all the tools, or my preference is to try to avoid as many tool specific syntax and nuances, and try to find the middle ground that works or at least has a chance to work or port across tools.
No, there is no standard.
There are even two different types of syntax: the intel-syntax which is predominant on Windows plattforms and the AT&T-sytanx which is dominant in the *nix-world.
Regarding the differently looking code in the wikipedia: the windows example uses the Win32API and the linux example uses a system call of the 0x80 interrupt.
Assembly languages differ from processor to processor so no, there is no standard.
In general, the "standard" assembly language for a particular family of processor is whatever the processor designers say it is. For example, the "standard" syntax for x86 is whatever Intel says it is. However, that doesn't prevent other people from creating a variant of the assembly language that targets the processor with slightly different syntax or additional features (Nasm is one example).
Well, I'm not sure if you are asking about syntax for x86 processors (I suppose yes, because you're mentioning NASM).
But there are two common standards:
Intel syntax that was originally used for documentation of the x86 platform
AT&T syntax which is common in Linux/Unix worlds.
NASM you have mentioned prefers the Intel syntax.
You can find some examples of the syntax differences in this article: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-gas-nasm/index.html.
There's none because there are many different CPUs with different instructions and other peculiarities and it's entirely up to their designer what syntax to use and how to name things. And there's little need to standardize that because assembly code is inherently unportable and needs to be rewritten for a different CPU anyway.
Assembly language is not OS-specific per se, it's CPU-specific, but for an assembly routine to access things that appear standard to you (e.g. some subroutine to print text in the console) OS-specific code is needed. For MSDOS you'd use BIOS and DOS interrupt service routines (invokable on the x86 CPU through int 13h, int 10h, int 21h, int 33h, etc instructions), for Windows you'd use Windows' (available through int 2eh and sysenter/syscall instructions), for Linux you'd use Linux' (e.g. int 80h). All of them are implemented differently in different OSes and expect different number and kinds of parameters and in different places (registers or memory). You can't standardize this part. The only thing you can do about it is build a compatibility/abstraction layer on top of the OS functionality so it looks the same from your assembly routines' point of view.
Assembly syntax / language depends on CPU rather then OS. For the x86 CPU family there are however two syntax's AT&T (used by Unix like operating systems by default) and Intel (used by Windows and DOS etc.)
However the two assembly examples on the wiki are both doing different things. The windows example uses the WIN32 API and to show a message box, so all function arguments are pushed onto the stack in reversed order and then calls the function MessageBox() which on his turn creates the messagebox.
The linux example uses the write syscall to write a string to stdout. Here all 'arguments' are stored in the registers and then the int 0x80 creates an 'interrupt' now the OS is entering kernel land and the kernel prints the string to stdout.
The linux assemly could be rewritten like:
section .data
msg: db "Hello, world!", 10
.len: equ $ - msg
section .text
extern write
extern exit
global _start
_start:
push msg.len
push msg
push dword 1
call write
push dword 0
call exit
The above assembly must be linked against libc and then this will call write in libc which on his turn executes exactly the same code as the example on the wiki.
Another thing to note, is that Windows and Unix like operating system use different file formats in there libraries and applications.
Unix like systems use ELF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executable_and_Linkable_Format and windows uses PE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Executable
This is why you see different sections in the assemblies on the wiki page.
How I can mix Ada code with assembly (assembled using GAS)?
I know how to link Ada with C, but how I can link with assembly? I know that gcc generates assembly code from Ada code, and because of this, I think is possible to do this cross-linking.
Presumably you would compile the assembly into a .o object file and give this as a parameter to your Ada compiler.
how can I work with the two codes?
If you are using GNAT on Intel x86, the Inline Assembler includes related examples.
Addendum: The -S option allows one "to examine the generated assembly code." This applies to Ada, C, C++, etc.
If you want to perform any kind of mixed-language programming with Ada, including Ada/Assember, you should probably look at your compiler's documentation on Interfacing pragmas, in particular its allowed calling conventions.
For example, Gnat provides an Assembler convention for pragma import/export.
Generally you will have to craft your assembler to act as a subprogram which uses a calling convention compatible with the "convention" used in your interfacing pragma.
Most compilers also support some kind of inline assembly, via the System.Machine_Code package. This allows you to mix small amounts of assembly language right in the same source files with your Ada.