Just my two cents: 1. There are architectures which have always had relative addressing, and use that term. 2. Some day, relative braches will be the norm and not the exception. As time goes on, any term with "base" as the root (e.g. unbased, baseless, etc.) is likely to need increasingly superfluous explanations to novices.
Thus, I suggest "relative branch" and/or "jump" should suffice. For the exclusive case (non-base register branching) perhaps "relative-only branching" and/or "jump-only" program[ming]. On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 5:38 PM, J R <jayare...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Sorry Steve. I didn't see your post until after I posted mine. > > === > > > Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:35:36 -0400 > > From: jayare...@hotmail.com > > Subject: Re: Base registers > > To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > > > > The problem is that all addresses are relative to something. > > Some are relative to a base register, some are relative > > to the current instruction. Even absolute addresses are > > relative to zero. ;-) > > > > How about base-free code? That sounds like a positive thing. > > > > (I avoided the temptation to to suggest "freebase" lest that > > be considered to have a negative connotation.) > > > > === > > > > > Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:13:30 -0400 > > > From: gt.ibm.li...@actionsoftware.com > > > Subject: Re: Base registers > > > To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > > > > > > Why don't we "jump" to the underlying notion of the "jump" > instructions, > > > or more accurately "branch relative" instructions, which is relative > > > addressing: "relative address oriented programming". > > > > > > I'll admit that it's not concise, but I'm optimistic we won't have a > > > religious war about the resulting acronym. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Regards, Gord Tomlin > > > Action Software International > > > (a division of Mazda Computer Corporation) > > > Tel: (905) 470-7113, Fax: (905) 470-6507 > > > > > > > > > On 2012-06-17 09:05, John Gilmore wrote: > > > > Words can of course have different specialized meanings in different > > > > contexts, but there is ordinarily an evolutionary path between these > > > > meanings. > > > > > > > > Physicians, for example, talk of "senile changes", meaning those > > > > associated with aging, in a way that is entirely devoid of pejorative > > > > intent. Or again, Chaucer and his contemporaries used the word > "lewd" > > > > to mean lay, not in holy orders; but there is a path between this > > > > meaning and the modern one: the clergy did not often make what we > call > > > > lewd gestures in public. > > > > > > > > I myself find 'baseless' very unsatisfactory, in part because it is > > > > not at all transparent. Thus, while I have no emotional investment > in > > > > the term "jump-based", I do believe a new one is needed; 'baseless' > > > > can scarcely avoid connotations of dispensability when in fact it is > > > > the base registers that are largely dispensable. > > > > > > > > We need to look forward to a time when the use of base registers, > > > > multiple ones in particular, and the arbitrary segmentation of code > > > > into 4096-byte pieces will be perceived as a quaint, historically > > > > interesting but obsolete practices; and a new contrasting term will > be > > > > helpful in changing the current "vulgar" mind set. (Mr Gilmartin's > > > > use of vulgar, which evolved from the Latin phrase "mobile vulgus", > is > > > > open to criticism; but that is a subject for another time and place.) > > > > > > > > Alternative suggestions? > > > > > > > > John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA > > > > > > > > > > > > -- OREXXMan
