Re: Why Bloat Is Still Software's Biggest Vulnerability

On 3/8/2024 1:38 AM, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

In article <urqpn1$pptq$2@dont-email.me>,
Don Y  <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 2/29/2024 6:37 AM, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

One-to-one relationship between assembler mnemonics and numbers?
This is a myth.

>
It has never been true.  An assembler is free to generate whatever code
satisfies the desire stated by the programmer.

 That is a silly response to a description of an assembler that
accomplish a one to one correspondance between machine code and
mnemonics. I don't care what other assemblers do or doesn't do.

The assumption that an assembler -- and, thus, a qualification for
ALL assemblers -- generates a one-to-one correspondence between
mnemonic and machine code is false.
What term do you apply to tools that take "assembly language"
mnemonics and DON'T generate one-to-one correspondences?
Are these NOT "assemblers"?
What term do you apply to tools that take "assembly language"
mnemonics and DO generate one-to-one correspondences?
Are these ALSO not assemblers?
I.e., the one-to-one correspondence is an *imagined* requirement
of "an assembler".