Are programming languages and methods ineffective? (assembler and C knowledge needed)

Posted by b-gen-jack-o-neill on Stack Overflow See other posts from Stack Overflow or by b-gen-jack-o-neill
Published on 2010-06-16T19:38:11Z Indexed on 2010/06/16 19:42 UTC
Read the original article Hit count: 153

Filed under:
|
|

Hi, for a long time, I am thinking and studying output of C language compiler in asemlber form, as well as CPU architecture. I know this may be silly to you, but it seems to me that something is very ineffective. Please, don´t be angry if I am wrong, and there is some reason I do not see for all these principles. I will be very glad if you tell me why is it designed this way. I actually trully believe I am wrong, I know the genius minds of people which get PCs together knew a reason to do so. What exactly, do you ask? I´ll tell you right away, I use C as a example:

1, Stack local scope memory allocation:

So, typical local memory allocation uses stack. Just copy esp to ebp and than allocate all the memory via ebp. OK, I would understand this if you explicitly need allocate RAM by default stack values, but if I do understand it correctly, modern OS use paging as a translation layer between application and physical RAM, when adress you desire is further translated before reaching actuall RAM byte. So why don´t just say 0x00000000 is int a,0x00000004 is int b and so? And access them just by mov 0x00000000,#10? Becouse you wont actually access memory blocks 0x00000000 and 0x00000004 but those your OS set the paging tables to. Actually, since memory allocation by ebp and esp use indirect adressing, "my" way would be even faster.

2, Variable allocation duplicitly:

When you run aaplication, Loader load its code into RAM. When you create variable, or string, compiler generates code that pushes these values on the top o stack when created in main. So there is actuall instruction for do so, and that actuall number in memory. So, there are 2 entries of the same value in RAM. One in fomr of instruction, second in form of actuall bytes in the RAM. But why? Why not to just when declaring variable count at which memory block it would be, than when used, just insert this memory location?

© Stack Overflow or respective owner

Related posts about c

    Related posts about methods