NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
in [ASM]
|
Prev: announce: my very first disassembler now available (GPL)
Next: Win32 non blocking console input?
From: Wolfgang Kern on 10 Sep 2008 15:15 Frank Kotler detected ? : .... >> and maybe this is just based on my desire to code C... > It *did* cross my mind, "Rod wants HLA..." :) :) LMFAO, like Beth could have replied to this ... Herbert told: better C than HLA Betov said : better dead than C FBK and RP : read but avoid ... Myself : search for only true facts ... __ wolfgang
From: Rod Pemberton on 11 Sep 2008 15:13 "Wolfgang Kern" <nowhere(a)never.at> wrote in message news:ga957d$7en$1(a)newsreader2.utanet.at... > You still work at the 486-museum ? :) No, but I'd like to support cpus as far back as a DX2 66Mhz 486. Nearest cutoff is 486. http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/80486/Intel-A80486DX2-66.html If you like cpu's, ... http://www.cpu-world.com http://www.cpu-collector.com/ http://www.cpu-collection.de/ http://www.cpushack.net/ > because windoze-coders and C may not know that 'Bits' really exist ? It's not so easy to fit the two together. C really doesn't have an understanding of flags commonly available in assembly. C supports integers. Look at how long and how many processors have had a carry flag. It's been there since the beginning of microprocessors, yet you can't easily check for integer overflow in C. Rod Pemberton
From: Alexei A. Frounze on 11 Sep 2008 15:25 On Sep 11, 12:13 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote: .... > It's not so easy to fit the two together. C really doesn't have an > understanding of flags commonly available in assembly. C supports integers. > Look at how long and how many processors have had a carry flag. It's been > there since the beginning of microprocessors, yet you can't easily check for > integer overflow in C. You can. It will just not be as short as in asm. Alex
From: Rod Pemberton on 11 Sep 2008 15:37 "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote in message news:gabqmd$jce$1(a)aioe.org... > > Could ya live with 7 GP regs? > > The current code isn't using SETcc and other macro's use push/pop. It's > hard to code without a stack... IIRC, making 'div' and 'mul' orthogonal was more difficult. I used push/pop with them also... Since I haven't tested them, they probably have some other bugs too. It might be worth trying to make them orthogonal just to test experimental syntax. Rod Pemberton
From: Wolfgang Kern on 12 Sep 2008 04:57
Rod Pemberton posted: >> You still work at the 486-museum ? :) > No, but I'd like to support cpus as far back as a DX2 66Mhz 486. > Nearest cutoff is 486. > http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/80486/Intel-A80486DX2-66.html > If you like cpu's, ... > http://www.cpu-world.com > http://www.cpu-collector.com/ > http://www.cpu-collection.de/ > http://www.cpushack.net/ You are rigth to support 486 because of the current population count. I still have one halfway working unit (bad ISA-IDE) around here, but how long will it take for them all to become replaced and vanish ? My estimation is about a few years, so my support cutoff became CPUID(1) with set (edx)bits: 0,2,4,15,24,25,26 iow:[FPU,debug-ext,TSC,Cmov,FXsave,mmx(SSE),xmm(SSE2)]. >> because windoze-coders and C may not know that 'Bits' really exist ? > It's not so easy to fit the two together. C really doesn't have an > understanding of flags commonly available in assembly. > C supports integers. Yes and they are signed by default, so calculations and expressions need some typing overhead for the unsigned world (like the CPU sees it). > Look at how long and how many processors have had a carry flag. > It's been there since the beginning of microprocessors, yet you can't > easily check for integer overflow in C. Right, and I may only guess why flags didn't make it into HLLs, perhaps much too complicated for those who only got a CS-degree ? :) __ wolfgang |