Well, I am interested in learning assembly to understand the computer, I
was just thinking that x86 would be the way to go since it's the type of
machine I own.

How successful would I be trying to get a ppc processor emulated in
Qemu? I've used it for testing out other distros, but it seems a bit
unstable even when the emulated machine is an x86.

What's your advice? Also, what is this high level assembly I keep
reading about. Is it pseudo code for teaching purposes or is it
legitimate?

Thanks,
Benjamin


On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 19:08 -0400, Brian Hurt wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, gramlich wrote:
> 
> > Does anyone on the list have experience programming in Assembly?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > If so,
> > do you have a favorite book that you've used to learn the language in
> > intel pentium processors?
> 
> I learned it from the Intel manuals, and reading the output of gcc, but 
> this was back in the days of the 386sx, and I'd had an assembly language 
> class back in college.
> 
> If you want to learn assembly language in general, kudos to you- and I 
> recommend starting with the 68K, or maybe the PPC.  A nice, simple, 
> regular instruction set, and not the bloated chaotic beast which is the 
> x86.  Note that assembly language is, effectively, assembly language- if 
> what you want is an understanding of what the computer is doing at the 
> lowest levels, and how it's doing it, knowing just about any assembly 
> language is sufficient (and necessary, IMHO).  The main operations of the 
> x86 are no different than that of the 68K or PPC.  And those architectures 
> are a lot easier to understand.  And, if you have the time, the x86 is a 
> lot easier to understand once you understand those simpler architectures.
> 
> If it's the x86 specifically you need, i.e. you're going to be doing some 
> serious x86 hacking, you want the intel books- although they're probably 
> not the books you want to learn from.  I haven't read any of the recent 
> crop of "learn assembly language of the x86" books, so I can't advise you 
> there.  Sorry.
> 
> Brian