Toolchain basics — translating assembly to machine code: The __________ program converts human-readable mnemonic assembly into executable machine language for a specific processor.

Introduction / Context:
Software toolchains transform source code into binaries. In low-level development, engineers write assembly using mnemonics that are easier to read than raw bits. A specialized program then converts this symbolic code into machine language instructions the CPU can directly execute.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Input: assembly source using mnemonics (e.g., MOV, ADD) and labels.
• Output: object or binary code composed of opcodes and data bytes for a target ISA.
• Target-dependent encoding: different CPUs have different opcode formats.

Concept / Approach:
An assembler reads assembly source, resolves symbols and labels, selects instruction encodings, and emits machine code. It may produce relocatable object files for later linking or absolute binaries for direct loading. This is distinct from compilers (which translate high-level languages to assembly or machine code) and linkers (which combine objects and resolve external references).

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Classic tools like MASM, NASM, and GAS are described as assemblers, each producing machine code for their respective targets, often via an object file stage before linking.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• debug: A debugger inspects and controls execution; it does not translate mnemonics to opcodes.
• C++ / fortran: High-level languages; their compilers may ultimately invoke an assembler but are not themselves the assembler.
• linker: Combines object files and resolves external symbols; does not perform mnemonic-to-opcode translation.

Common Pitfalls:
Conflating compiler and assembler roles, or assuming a debugger can generate final binaries from mnemonics without assembly.

Final Answer:
assembler