I wish somebody would create an online playground for learning x64 assembly.
It isn't so hard to install NASM and start from there, but it would be substantially easier to learn if there was an option like codeacademy for assembly.
I’ve been searching for this for the last couple weeks. Not related, but the original author who wrote Programming from The Ground Up released a new assembly book last year. PGU was previously one of the highest recommended assembly books
In my experience, sometimes the "systems" part means something along the lines of "architecture". I've seen syllabi for "computer systems" courses that did an overview of virtual memory and all, ran up to a bit of assembly, and then moved on to stuff the OS provides like syscalls, etc. Maybe that's the case here?
I got curious and looked. It's not intro to computer science, but intro to computer systems (i.e. systems programming and high level computer architecture). https://cs.brown.edu/courses/info/csci0330/
Back on my high school days at technical school, Assembly programming was taught on the 11th grade, alongside Turbo Pascal, Clipper and DBase III+, to give an image of the time period.
15 year old students had no issue dealing with 8086 and 68000 Assembly.
"To call a function, the program should place the first six integer or pointer parameters in the registers %rdi, %rsi, %rdx, %rcx, %r8, and %r9." This sounds like System V, hence GCC.
Can you kindly recommend me a book to learn more about ABI and the associate information such as computer architecture etc? In university I've written as assembler, a compiler and also took computer architecture class but still I do not seem to understand the ABI.
For general systems programming/asm, AMD has REALLY well written documentation. Intel is better for edge cases and are more explicit. But when learning the explicitness makes it more complicated and AMD reads on the level of a regular person, not some 80 year old greybeard who writes asm in hex codes.
Thank you. But I was wondering if there is any reputable text book that I can read front to back that will give me a good overview with examples. Connecting ABI in relation to MSVC, GCC and System V as the sibling comment mentioned. I have use MASM before, and I am not sure if NASM manual contains what I am looking for - but I'll take a look.
Mine was one of the later 6800-series - an 8-bit CISC CPU with enough 16-bit extensions to not feel too constrained. It's interesting that everything which made it a great learning platform (orthogonal instruction set, instructions for common but complex operations, ability to access lower bits of registers directly) make x64 a horrible instruction set to learn as your first. In that regard, x64 seems more RISC-like: it's intended for compilers to generate that, not humans.
This is from a school? The author (Doeppner, it seems) should be embarrassed.
"x64" is a marketing name primarily used by Microsoft. Sure, many of us know what you're talking about when you use "x64", but it's just not a real thing. There's no 464, 564, 664, 764, et cetera, so the "x" means nothing, unlike its use in "x86".
It's like using "virus" to describe a Trojan - people will generally get the gist, but you're technically wrong, and if you're supposed to know what you're talking about, then you're certainly not showing it.
Yeah, it's actually called EM64T or at the very worst IA-32e. /s
Speaking seriously, there are two variants of this architecture: AMD64 and Intel 64 (that's what AMD and Intel call their respective versions). Everything else is misnomer, including legacy monikers such as "x86-64".
As a recent grad, I was going to say education on hardware optimization is lacking in universities, but then again there's a lot of snake oil on sites like stackoverflow. Although users like Peter Cordes have done a good job cleaning up, people still seem to eschew benchmarking for eyeballing code à la "Big O", ignoring the effects of compilers and hardware (CPU type, memory layout).
I wouldn't be too harsh on the prof for a throwaway doc: it reads as a perfectly fine intro to concepts like stack, heap, and basic assembly instructions. I'd argue most computer science students, with aims of a programming job, don't need to even know these concepts [1], [2]. With hardware advancements, most probably don't need to worry about code performance. Of those who do, they'll just google Agner Fog, and learn on their own just fine. Despite my opening sentence, I'm sure the Electrical Engineering/Computer Engineering departments are much stronger in this area.
I think your reaction is an excellent example of a significant problem with discourse on the Internet.
Correct terms matter. Using incorrect terminology just because it's common is no excuse.
Being pedantic about things isn't helpful, either, but which is worse: a teacher in a specific field using terms incorrectly, and therefore passing along that incorrect usage, or someone pointing that out?
So let's reexamine: is this "one of the most stark examples of bikeshedding", or is this the Internet showing its lack of tolerance for a genuine care for facts and correctness?
So, what is the correct term then: "Intel 64" or "AMD64"? That's what the CPU manufacturers call their specification of that architecture right now. Intel used to call it "IA-32e". AMD called it "x86-64" before they've released it, but then switched to "AMD64". All of those are "marketing names" used (or no longer used) by the manufacturers. How should we pick the correct one? Is there even a correct one?
If "x64" can refer to amd64 or Intel 64, then it can also refer to PPC64, aarch64, mips64, et cetera.
But Intel 64, amd64, x86_64, x86, all work because none are ambiguous or misleading. "IA-32e" would be confusing, but at least it refers to a specific Intel marketing term that one can look up. They're specific enough to avoid ambiguity.
(to be fair, "Intel 64" could refer to Itanic, so that's not as unambiguous as it could be, but without context, it's reasonable most would assume it refers to 64 bit x86)
> If "x64" can refer to amd64 or Intel 64, then it can also refer to PPC64, aarch64, mips64, et cetera.
No, it cannot. It refers exactly to AMD64 (not "amd64", it's a GCC's marketing name) and Intel 64 (and their previous revisions) and nothing else. See, I too can omit middle terms in a logical sequence and simply assert the conclusion (You've omitted something like "and if the name can denote two things it may as well denote any number of things with vaguely similar alternative names" which is obviously ridiculous).
> "Intel 64" could refer to Itanic
By your own logic it could not. "Itanium" is a marketing name, the architecture's actual name was "IA-64".
The things have names that people put on them. If people refer to AMD64 as "x64", then "x64" is a name of that thing, literally. Whether it's correct or not is a matter of convention and popularity, and your proposed convention is quite unpopular, I'd say.
Sorry but you veered way past "someone pointing it out" and crashed your car into the bike shed when you said "The author (Doeppner, it seems) should be embarrassed."
Imagine having studied tons of literature for your thesis and then ending up in a industry that uses the same terms, except with half of them with a meaning that is incompatible with what you learned, but in a subtle manner.
It isn't so hard to install NASM and start from there, but it would be substantially easier to learn if there was an option like codeacademy for assembly.