Skip to main content

I was taking this course - CMU 18-447, Computer Architecture at Carnegie Mellon to brush my knowledge and concepts.

They say that most of the machine level details and implementations isare taken care of at the Instruction Set Architecture(ISA) level and is abstracted at that level.

Some Intel processors even have hardware level translation layers that take the front level ISA that is exposed to the programmer and translate them further closer to the machine.

Given such power is provided by the ISA/Processor itself, why do compilers generate direct machine code, or is it just a black box and internally it uses assemblers to convert them into direct machine code?

I hear that JVM takes byte code and translate them directly to machine code(exe).Is this true or is my understanding wrong here?

I was taking this course - CMU 18-447, Computer Architecture at Carnegie Mellon to brush my knowledge and concepts.

They say that most of the machine level details and implementations is taken care at the Instruction Set Architecture(ISA) level and is abstracted at that level.

Some Intel processors even have hardware level translation layers that take the front level ISA that is exposed to the programmer and translate them further closer to the machine.

Given such power is provided by the ISA/Processor itself, why do compilers generate direct machine code, or is it just a black box and internally it uses assemblers to convert them into direct machine code?

I hear that JVM takes byte code and translate them directly to machine code(exe).Is this true or is my understanding wrong here?

I was taking this course - CMU 18-447, Computer Architecture at Carnegie Mellon to brush my knowledge and concepts.

They say that most of the machine level details and implementations are taken care of at the Instruction Set Architecture(ISA) level and is abstracted at that level.

Some Intel processors even have hardware level translation layers that take the front level ISA that is exposed to the programmer and translate them further closer to the machine.

Given such power is provided by the ISA/Processor itself, why do compilers generate direct machine code, or is it just a black box and internally it uses assemblers to convert them into direct machine code?

I hear that JVM takes byte code and translate them directly to machine code(exe).Is this true or is my understanding wrong here?

spelling, formatting
Source Link
gnat
  • 20.5k
  • 29
  • 117
  • 309

So I was taking this course -

   http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5PHm2jkkXmidJOd59REog9jDnPDTG6IJCMU 18-447, Computer Architecture at Carnegie Mellon

just to brush my knowledge and concepts.They

They say that most of the machine level details and implementations is taken care at the Instruction Set Architecture(ISA) level and is abstracted at that level.Some

Some Intel processors even have hardware level translation layers that take the front level ISA that is exposed to the programmer and translate them further closer to the machine.

Given such power is provided by the ISA/Processor itself, why do compilers generate direct machine code, or is it just a black box and internally it uses assemblers to convert them into direct machine code.?

I hear that JVM takes byte code and translate them directly to machine code(exe).Is this true or is my understanding wrong here.?

So I was taking this course -

 http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5PHm2jkkXmidJOd59REog9jDnPDTG6IJ

just to brush my knowledge and concepts.They say that most of the machine level details and implementations is taken care at the Instruction Set Architecture(ISA) level and is abstracted at that level.Some Intel processors even have hardware level translation layers that take the front level ISA that is exposed to the programmer and translate them further closer to the machine.

Given such power is provided by the ISA/Processor itself, why do compilers generate direct machine code, or is it just a black box and internally it uses assemblers to convert them into direct machine code.

I hear that JVM takes byte code and translate them directly to machine code(exe).Is this true or is my understanding wrong here.

I was taking this course -  CMU 18-447, Computer Architecture at Carnegie Mellon to brush my knowledge and concepts.

They say that most of the machine level details and implementations is taken care at the Instruction Set Architecture(ISA) level and is abstracted at that level.

Some Intel processors even have hardware level translation layers that take the front level ISA that is exposed to the programmer and translate them further closer to the machine.

Given such power is provided by the ISA/Processor itself, why do compilers generate direct machine code, or is it just a black box and internally it uses assemblers to convert them into direct machine code?

I hear that JVM takes byte code and translate them directly to machine code(exe).Is this true or is my understanding wrong here?

Source Link

Why do some compilers generate direct machine code?

So I was taking this course -

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5PHm2jkkXmidJOd59REog9jDnPDTG6IJ

just to brush my knowledge and concepts.They say that most of the machine level details and implementations is taken care at the Instruction Set Architecture(ISA) level and is abstracted at that level.Some Intel processors even have hardware level translation layers that take the front level ISA that is exposed to the programmer and translate them further closer to the machine.

Given such power is provided by the ISA/Processor itself, why do compilers generate direct machine code, or is it just a black box and internally it uses assemblers to convert them into direct machine code.

I hear that JVM takes byte code and translate them directly to machine code(exe).Is this true or is my understanding wrong here.