multiplication differences in HLA and gnu as
in [ASM]
|
Prev: Directly Reading/Writing to Disk
Next: remplace Ascii
From: Evenbit on 5 Apr 2008 21:41 On Apr 4, 12:45 pm, "Wolfgang Kern" <nowh...(a)never.at> wrote: > Nathan "Evenbit" mentioned: > > [about syntax issue of the several forms ...] > > Yeah, it seems to be hard for most tools to distinguish between > > f6.. IMUL byte r/m ;AX=Al*r/m > f7.. IMUL r/m ;(e)dx:(e)ax = (e)ax * r/m16(32) > ;the two above can't overflow > > and the more rare seen: > > 0f af .. IMUL r,r/m16(32) ;overflow ignored! > > beside the three operand variant: > > 69/6b .. IMUL r,r/m,SXimm8/s16(s32) ;overflow ignored! > > so it needs any kind of syntax-decision, and I'd go for > the NASM/FASM-way, and just decide by stated operands > > single operand: F6/F7 .. IMUL .. > two operands: 0F AF .. IMUL ..,.. > three operands: 69/6B .. IMUL ..,..,.. > > and fast forget about any additional terms which may be more > confusing than telling, as already seen in macro-names like > INTMUL/IMULREG/INTMULRRM_IMM ... > Yes, in the interest of avoiding confusion, I'd expect some tool- makers to "invent" a few "short-cuts" every here and there. However, given that we are insane enough to choose ASM in the first place, we should dispose of such things and just approach the complicated stuff head-on. :) Nathan.
From: Betov on 6 Apr 2008 03:31 Frank Kotler <fbkotler(a)verizon.net> �crivait news:_oLJj.2233$Oa2.703 @trndny06: > If you set an arbitrary goal - 5% by the end of the year - you risk > missing it. What are you going to do then, give up? 2008 *is* the 'Linux year", you know. For the first (?) time, we have seen PCs sold with Linux on board. If the market share does not reach over 5% at the end of such a year, don't hope it before the next twenty years. Then, for sure i will be dead, and RosAsm will be the shame in my life. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 6 Apr 2008 03:50 Robert Redelmeier <redelm(a)ev1.net.invalid> �crivait news:v9MJj.213 $iK6.186(a)nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com: > I'm frankly shocked to see you advocate market share as a > measure of success. How do your projects measure up? :)) Good shot Robert! But i hope that you have noticed that i never developped anything with popularity in mind. If i had wanted RosAsm to get some success, it would be completely different: Something like FASM. For an OS like Linux, yes, evidently, the success rate measures in terms of users number, and the situation is quite clear: You need to use something, under Linux, and it will work, - with problems - if it is trivial , and fail patheticaly if it is a little bit more than trivial. Of course, for the true Linux fanatics, this is not a problem: They use it, and the other ones use what they want. Period. But, my problem is out of this consideration: I have already devoted 10 years of my life at developping for a target OS that will never exist, and i will not do the same error twice. That's it. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Wolfgang Kern on 6 Apr 2008 03:37 Evenbit wrote: [about syntax issue of the several IMUL forms ...] .... >> so it needs any kind of syntax-decision, and I'd go for >> the NASM/FASM-way, and just decide by stated operands >> single operand: F6/F7 .. IMUL .. >> two operands: 0F AF .. IMUL ..,.. >> three operands: 69/6B .. IMUL ..,..,.. >> and fast forget about any additional terms which may be more >> confusing than telling, as already seen in macro-names like >> INTMUL/IMULREG/INTMULRRM_IMM ... > Yes, in the interest of avoiding confusion, I'd expect some tool- > makers to "invent" a few "short-cuts" every here and there. However, > given that we are insane enough to choose ASM in the first place, we > should dispose of such things and just approach the complicated stuff > head-on. :) Yeah, why make it easy when complication show that many advantages: * newbies see an authority in one who creates new/own instructions ? * terms not found in the CPU-manuals make ASM-authors more popular ? (just because of questions like in the current topic) * and some more ... :) __ wolfgang
From: Betov on 6 Apr 2008 04:16
Evenbit <nbaker2328(a)charter.net> �crivait news:32679dac-ebd2-4135-a325- f14c13bb8626(a)s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > Can you be specific about what aspects are "poor quality" and to what > it is you are comparing them? I have 2 active PCs, actually: One with a Celeron 1.3 and Win-2000, that works since september 2002 (!!!). Runs 12 hours a day, each day, since that date. Never unfragment anything. Never had ANY problem with anything... But one: Now, it is so old that i can no more upgrade my Java engine, because it says that the OS is too old... Well, I never had any problem with Java Web Pages, anyway, dispiting this problem. A new one with Ubuntu (bought as such, recently), with an actual Core-Duo. Very good PC. Extreemely silent, and so on. Mind you, whereas the new one is -at least- 4 times faster than the old one, the Linux applications are way *slower* under the new one than what they are under the old tired beast (???!!!...). Many examples, goin,g up to the point of making some feature unusable... Mind you, i *need* Java for some Web pages that i am using on a daily basis. Guess what? None of those pages work under Ubuntu, whereas i never had any problem with my "out of date" Java, under Win-2000. Not talking of the alert messages bigger than the screen (???!!!...) and of the permissions file that is not created where it says it should be, and other such stupidities, that denote a complete lack of competencies in the programming. Pathetic. Simpy pathetic. Sad to have to say it. When my old horse will die, i am afraid i will have (one another time) to buy one another PC with a Windows on board if i want to access the pages i need to access. Notice that the programmers who have created those pages with Java functionalities *made* the appreciated effort of testing them under several Linuxes (!!!...). Well... :( Betov. < http://rosasm.org > |