Segmentation in real mode
in [ASM]
|
Prev: stricmp
Next: Killing Explorer
From: Betov on 23 Mar 2005 06:23 Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> ýcrivait news:42413717.7E72EEC4 @unibwm.de: > That depends on your history. I started with FORTRAN IV and > punchcards. There where 72 columns (the first five for labels, > one for continuation and the rest for the code). When I later > saw C code, my feeling was maybe similar to that of Betov, > but if you try it, you get very fast used to it and will like > it. But for assembler code I still prefer the simple form: > one instruction per line, an optional label, a TAB, the instruction > (all starting in the same column) and an optional comment. > But this is just a matter of personal preference. I am absolutely convinced that some details are _not_ a matter of personal preferences. For example, having a Comment after an Instruction is an evident error. 1) This is simply _un-maintainable_. 2) There is no reason why an Asmer would want to comment an Instruction of the Language he uses. We do not need Infos about what the Instructions are doing, but about what the Instructions Chunks (the _Program) are (is) doing. So, the only possible room for a Comment is above a Chunk of Instructions, in order to recall, several week after the first write, what Code Flow is doing. I sometimes also put some Comment(s) after an Instructions Chunk, in order to explain the result, but, in all cases, _always_, stand alone Comments. All of this depends, indead, on the personal history. But, not changing, after the personal history has pushes to bad practices is nothing but intellectual laziness. I also begun writing the old traditional fashion way, but, all i got convinced with during the developements progresses, was simply, that this way was utterly wrong, and that the new writing style i introduced with Multi-Instructions Lines, isolated Comments, Multi-Lines Instructions, HLL Indents combined to A86-Like True Local Labels, Macros for HLLs Constructs, and so on,... was the definitve way to go, dispiting the resistances: The old style is simply not appropriated for writing real Life Applications in full Assembly. You, herbert, are in a difficult position, where, on one hand, you say that Asm is not for writing real life Apps, and the the right Tool for the job, is C, whereas, on the other hand, you do not make use of the Asm writing style that would prove the reverse to yourself. Betov. < http://rosasm.org/ >
From: Ro on 26 Mar 2005 01:37 On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:29:59 +0100, Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> wrote: >Ro wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:04:19 +0100, Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> > >> >Just look at >> >source code written in the different syntax and then decide >> >which one is better readable, this is the one to use. > >> it is not the question of "look" for decide but for decide one has to >> program in both syntaxes for some year. I don't believe to theory. > >Once you are used to a syntax, then it doesn't matter how it >looks like. No it is matter. >But a beginner should use a syntax which makes it >easy to get used to yes >(and I think the Motorola syntax is superior >to the Intel syntax here). I don't know it
From: Ro on 26 Mar 2005 01:37 On 23 Mar 2005 11:23:39 GMT, Betov <betov(a)free.fr> wrote: >writing style i introduced with Multi-Instructions Lines, >isolated Comments, Multi-Lines Instructions, HLL Indents >combined to A86-Like True Local Labels, Macros for HLLs >Constructs, and so on, yes I agree
From: Jim Carlock on 29 Mar 2005 21:45
Thanks Frank. wotsit.org was the site. I found another one as well... http://filext.com/ Microsoft provides the reference to http://filext.com/. Microsoft doesn't seem to know what the .idl extension is used for, even though they build a compiler (called the MIDL compiler) and another compiler (called the mktyplib.exe compiler)... http://shell.windows.com/fileassoc/0409/xml/redir.asp?Ext=idl -- Jim Carlock Please post replies to newsgroup. "Frank Kotler" <fbkotler(a)comcast.net> wrote: Jim Carlock wrote: > I was looking for the website that provided the meanings of > different extensions. I think it was you that provided the link > to such a document. I should have posted the message with > a new subject. Dunno. http://www.wotsit.org perhaps? Not really what you're looking for, I don't think, but it's the only vaguely related thing I can think of... You sure it was me? > I was going through some old messages on Google and > noticed a message where you interested in XML and that is > what brought up my asking about XML. I've heard a lot of "hype" about XML... Thank's for the rundown on it (in another post). I still don't really see what it does for me... I can define what the tags do. So? I can do that without XML, and they don't have to be lowercase... or matched... > I don't know if you have any interest in Microsoft OS's. To contradict Alex, "nope". :) > I miss out on alot of the messages here because of all the haggling. Haggling??? Here??? :) Best, Frank |