Most "active" coroutine library project?

Hendrik van Rooyen hendrik at
Wed Sep 30 09:25:28 CEST 2009

On Wednesday, 30 September 2009 04:16:45 Grant Edwards wrote:

> Assembler macros are indeed a lost art.  Back in the day, I
> remember seeing some pretty impressive macro libraries layered
> 2-3 deep.  I've done assember macros as recently as about 2-3
> years go because it was the easiest way to auto-magically
> generate lookup tables for use by C programs (macro assemblers
> always have a "repeat" directive, and cpp doesn't).
> > The 803x bit handling is, in my arrogant opinion, still the
> > best of any processor. - jump if bit set then clear as an
> > atomic instruction rocks.
> The bit-addressing mode was (and still is) cool. However, the
> stack implementation hurts pretty badly now that memory is
> cheap.
> I shouldn't criticize the 8051.  I remember switching from the
> 8048 to the 8051 (8751 actually, at about $300 each) and
> thinking it was wonderful.  [Anybody who remembers fighting
> with the 8048 page boundaries knows what I mean.]

You were lucky - I started with an 8039 and the 8048 was a step up!

You are right about the stack - there are a lot of implementations now with 
two or more data pointers, which make a big difference.  If only someone 
would build one with a two byte stack pointer that points into movx space, 
the thing would fly faster again.  It would make a stunning difference to the 
multitasking performance if you do not have to store the whole stack. Of 
course, if you are mucking around in assembler, then the 128 bytes at the top 
of the internal memory is often enough.

This is getting a bit far away from python and coroutines, though. :-)

- Hendrik

More information about the Python-list mailing list