Linux X demo
in [ASM]
|
Prev: masm linking from console
Next: NASM HelloWorld - DOS
From: Betov on 30 Jul 2007 08:34 "Wolfgang Kern" <nowhere(a)never.at> �crivait news:f8khdu$2gl$1 @newsreader2.utanet.at: > I may laugh about all the nonsense a bit later ... for now I'm heavy > upset for loosing money by nothing than checking on the idiot's lies. > At least someone else will now watch every of his steps for a while. > I could have ignored his statement, but security of clients data is > just the top priority of the whole KESYS project At first thought, i would tend to say that there exists very small probabilities that one of your clients would ever read the lies of this individual. On a second thought, I have to consider the real danger, for your professional activities. This criminal has been able in the past, of so amaizing things, that i think, that the best you could do, if you want to protect yourself, would be to leave the battle field. In my own case, i have nothing to loose, and, as i always said, i do not care of the damages this criminal is doing to RosAsm. So, i am in a quite different situation... Resisting to Randall Hyde is high cost, but paying by professional damages would be over-priced, and, trust me, what he is able to do, goes way over the ALA field, and way over whatever you could do to defend yourself, as demonstrated, one another time, for example, by the *complete* disparition of RosAsm Wikipedia page, from an internal (internal to Wikipedia) conspiration, driven by guys who are not even under the direct control of our swindler. Will we succeed to restore this Page? *Never*. Personally, this makes me laugh, but if my earning would depend on it, i suppose that it would not make me laugh either... Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Rod Pemberton on 30 Jul 2007 13:42 <rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu> wrote in message news:1185722612.720431.312980(a)z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 29, 7:52 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nowhere.cmm> wrote: > > "Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demun...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > > > news:877ioj1qmv.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org... > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nowhere.cmm> writes: > > > > "Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demun...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > > >news:873aze5gms.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org... > > > > > Well, it does say that ``la[--i]'' is to be evaluated before > > > > ``la[--i]=i''. > > > > > > True, that is stated. > > > > > > > It also says that ``--i'' is to be evalutate before ``la[--i]''. > > > > > > False, that is unstated. But, it is a logical corollary to 'la[--i]' > > being > > > > evaluated. > > > > > > > That much I evidently have no issue with. > > > > > > > It does *not* say that ``la[--i]'' is to be evaluated before ``i''. > > > > > > True, that is unstated. But, if it where stated, that would contradict > > > > conditions of 'la[--i]' being evaluated prior to 'la[--i]=i'. > > > > > > It says 'la[--i]' is to be evaluated before 'la[--i]=i'. I.e., '--i' > > must > > > > be evaluated prior to 'i' to maintain precedence: > > > > > Utter utter nonsense. Your "i.e." contains no valid logic at all. > > > > It's called precedence. The primary expression 'la[--i]' must be evaluated > > before the much lower precedence 'la[--i]=i'. > > > > Careful Phil, the fact that '=' has lower precedence has nothing to do > with the evaluation order. The fact that '=' defines a sequence point > is what guarantees that the left hand side will be evaluated before > the right hand side. > Clearly, you haven't been following the conversation. As I previously stated, sequence points were introduced with ANSI C in 1989. We're not talking about ANSI C code. We're talking about K&R C and pre-K&R C circa 1974 whose order of evaluation is purely defined by precedence. Unfortunately, Phil can't seem to grasp this and keeps converting explicitly inclusive statements in the 1974 into exclusive ones. I.e., he keeps applying ANSI C sequence points (inside-out) to non-sequence point C code (outside-in). Rod Pemberton
From: Phil Carmody on 30 Jul 2007 14:14 "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have(a)nowhere.cmm> writes: > > Do you really think that ``la[--i]'' has higher precedence than ``i''? > > Gotta be the seventeenth time I've clarified that... See, you're wrongly > breaking up the grammar into sequence points yet again. Funny - yet again I don't mention sequence points, and you pretend that I do. Why do you do that? You're getting even more painful, as you are deliberately avoiding almost everything I include in my posts and substituting, well, inventions such as the above. By 'clarifyied that', do you mean 'yes'? It was a yes/no question, after all. If your answer is indeed yes, then I promise I will make only one more post to this thread. [Snip - immature ad hominems. Grow up.] Phil -- Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all. -- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
From: JD on 30 Jul 2007 15:45 Phil Carmody wrote: > "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have(a)nowhere.cmm> writes: >>> Do you really think that ``la[--i]'' has higher precedence than ``i''? >> Gotta be the seventeenth time I've clarified that... See, you're wrongly >> breaking up the grammar into sequence points yet again. > > Funny - yet again I don't mention sequence points, and you pretend > that I do. Why do you do that? You're getting even more painful, as > you are deliberately avoiding almost everything I include in my > posts and substituting, well, inventions such as the above. > > By 'clarifyied that', do you mean 'yes'? It was a yes/no question, > after all. If your answer is indeed yes, then I promise I will > make only one more post to this thread. The "Ostrich Routine". > > [Snip - immature ad hominems. Grow up.] I'm wondering why you can't figure out for yourself that when you keep making the same mistakes over and over again, it makes it very easy for others to spot them, and to recognize them for what they really are. It's becoming more and more obvious that when you can't argue logically anymore, you try to confuse your opponents, and then you falsely claim that they do not understand. That gives you all the excuse you need to killfile them, thereby avoiding the embarrassment of losing the argument. You truly are becoming very transparent. -Joel Davison [It's going to be interesting to see how much of this you conveniently clip (another one of your childish tactics) if/when you respond.]
From: Herbert Kleebauer on 1 Aug 2007 10:22
Frank Kotler wrote: > int 80h > add esp, 3 * 4 ; free space for parameters > test eax, eax ; ERROR > js err > > ; my apologies for propagating this sloppiness. > ; really should be "cmp eax, -4096" (or -4095?) > ; won't happen here, but we *could* get a > ; valid return over 2G! - fbk Ok, if Linus himself said this already 10 years ago, it must be true: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Re: test version of 2.1.0 available Linus Torvalds (torvalds(a)cs.helsinki.fi) Tue, 24 Sep 1996 09:52:26 +0300 (EET DST) * Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] * Next message: Herbert Rosmanith: "Re: NULL strings cause "segmenation fault"" * Previous message: George Bonser: "Re: test version of 2.1.0 available (fwd)" * In reply to: Michael Beach: "RE: /proc/self/fd/0" On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Richard Gooch wrote: > > I've just tried this, and get the following behaviour when I try to > load a module (this happens for a variety of modules, not just one): > > # cd /lib/modules/2.1.0/net > # insmod 3c509.o > create_module: Unknown error 997978112 Ok, this is due to the silly library stub seemingly thinking that a large positive value is in fact a error condition due to sign problems. That doesn't mean that the kernel is broken: there are other system calls that return large numbers that might be thought of as negative even though they aren't errors (just an example: mmap() can return addresses with the high bit set, and always could). Instead of testing the sign bit, the low-level system call should probably do something like this: .... do system call, return in %eax ... movl %eax,%edx addl $4095,%edx jc error error if return was -1 .. -4095 Is somebody willing to fix up the module loader? Linus |