on goto
in [ASM]
|
From: io_x on 8 May 2010 14:59 "io_x" <a(a)b.c.invalid> ha scritto nel messaggio news:4bdda3e7$0$1112$4fafbaef(a)reader4.news.tin.it... > "Red Rooster" ha scritto nel messaggio > I advise them it could be not always so, > there could be one language in wicht goto is easy :) for example in these days i wrote this function for one sub-window that gets data 90% of lines has at last one goto, #, jc, jmp etc i'm naturally sloppy, doing some math count with my fingers i'm not much smart, not remember [nor want remember] somting like many OS api how is possible that both this routine and its sub-windows goes well? it call the server, send data, and set the right answer ; void DialogButtonClick(u32 Handle, u32 Message) ; 0j, 4i, 8Ra, 12Handle, 16Message ; 2048, 2052, 2056, 2060, 2064 ; 0k,4j,8i,12b,16Ra, 20P_Handle, 24P_Message +2048 ; 2068 2072 align 4 DialogButtonClickCliente: <b,i,j,k << NConto=160 s-=2048 ; iint3 i=^2068|a=^2072|#.1 ..e: a=0| stc| ##.z ..1: a==ID_DC_BTN_INVIA!#.8 a=s|D*s=0|SetDlgItemTextA(i, ID_DC_ED_RISULTATO, a) ; iint3 DC_VerificaCampi(i)|jnc .1a ..1e: DC_StampaErrore(i,a)|#.9 ; caso errore non sanabile ; controlli dopo questo punto ; tipo "GetDlgItemTextA(,,)|a<=0?#.9" ; dovrebbero essere inutili poiche' sono ; stati fatti in DC_VerificaCampi(i) ..1a: a==2!#.2 ; n conto inesistente => cerca dal nome e cognome n conto a=NomeDaInviare |GetDlgItemTextA(i, ID_DC_ED_NOME1, a, 32)|a<=0?#.9 a=NomeDaInviare |IsSpaceString_m(a)|a==1#.9 a=CognomeDaInviare|GetDlgItemTextA(i, ID_DC_ED_COGNOME1, a, 32)|a<=0?#.9 a=CognomeDaInviare|IsSpaceString_m(a)|a==1#.9 k=NomeDaInviare |j=CercaNumeroDalNomeCognome ; Quando si preme il tasto invia ; se esiste un tread [risposta attesa] => segnala errore [esiste gia' operazione] ; altrimenti ; apre un thread con il compito di aggiornare tutti i campi ; di cui ID_MD_ED_RISULTATO e' quello che il tread puo' scrivere ; insieme a ID_MD_ED_NCONTO ..1aa: D*trhandle#.1c ; in trhandle il solo thread apribile ..1b: a=&^64|*a=i|*a+4=k|D*a+8=0|r=&^16 ; D*a+8==1 finestra principale ; D*a+8==0 finestra cliente CreateThread(0, 0, j, a, 0, r)|a==0#.1e *trhandle=a|#.9 ..1c: a=*trhandle|c=s|GetExitCodeThread(a, c)|a==0#.1e a^=a D*s!=&STILL_ACTIVE!#.1e ; se il processo e' terminato a=*trhandle|CloseHandle(a)|a==0#.1e|D*trhandle=0|#.1b #.9 ..2: a==3!#.3 ; n conto presente ma assenti nome e cognome => ; cerca nome e cognome dal numero di conto a=&*s+NConto|GetDlgItemTextA(i, ID_DC_ED_NCONTO, a, 32)|a<=0?#.9 k=&*s+NConto|j=DC_CercaDalContoCliente|#.1aa #.9 ..3: a#.9 ; a==0 significa estono il numero conto e anche i nomi e cognomi a=&^24|CB_GetText(a, 40, i, ID_DC_CMB_OPERAZIONI)|jc .9 c==0!#.4 ; inserisci nuovo cliente k=0 ; k not used j=DC_InserisciCliente|#.1aa #.9 ..4: c==1!#.5 ; elimina cliente k=0 ; k not used j=DC_EliminaCliente|#.1aa #.9 ..5: ; variazione dei dati cliente #.9 ..8: a==ID_DC_BTN_AZZERA!#.9 azzeraFormCliente(i) ..9: a=1|clc ..z: s=&*s+2048 >> NConto >b,i,j,k ret 8
From: Nick on 8 May 2010 14:57 Keith Thompson <kst-u(a)mib.org> writes: > Juha Nieminen <nospam(a)thanks.invalid> writes: >> In comp.lang.c++ io_x <a(a)b.c.invalid> wrote: >>> with assembly is possible to write recursions functions too >> >> That's like saying that C supports object-oriented programming. > > Depending on the architecure, not really. Supporting full > object-orientation in C can be quite difficult. For some assembly > languages (certainly for the very few I've used), recursion is just > a matter of having a subroutine call itself. And, in all but the most trivial cases, using a couple of push/pop instructions to keep some state between calls. It's certainly easier to write recursive functions in assembly than in old "line number only and no local variables" BASIC. -- Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
From: Richard Heathfield on 8 May 2010 16:57 Juha Nieminen wrote: > In comp.lang.c++ Richard Heathfield <rjh(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote: >> Juha Nieminen wrote: >>> In comp.lang.c++ Richard Heathfield <rjh(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote: >>>> If the data are sorted, bsearch. >>>> >>>> If not, why not? >>>> >>>> In any case, your loop condition expressions do not correctly describe >>>> the conditions under which the loop will terminate. Please rewrite your >>>> example so that they do, and then by all means ask me again if you wish. >>> No offense, but it always amuses me how some C programmers try to >>> wiggle themselves out of actually giving honest answers when they are >>> presented with problematic situations related to their coding style, C, >>> or both. >> Your paragraph, above, is a classic example. > > You know, an answer of "no, you are" is rather childish. How about > presenting some actual arguments instead? Well, I thought I had done so. Sorry for the late reply, by the way - I've been kinda busy. > I gave you a piece of code and asked you to modify it to conform to > your principles. You did not do that. Who is trying to avoid answering > to a challenge here? Oh, I can modify it easily enough, and I am reasonably confident of how you'll react to the modification, but here it is anyway. I am too lazy/tired to look up your original code now, but IIRC basically you're searching through an unsorted 3D array, which I would do along these lines: /* p is a pointer to a valid "struct point" object, with x, y, and z members */ int found = 0; for(x = 0; !found && x < xlim; x++) { for(y = 0; !found && y < ylim; y++) { for(z = 0; !found && z < zlim; z++) { if(haystack[x][y][z] == needle) { found = 1; point_assign(p, x, y, z); /* that is, p.x = x; p.y = y, etc */ } } } } return found; And I know you're not going to like the extra tests any more than I like your early returns. Style issue. <snip> >>> Is it *really* that hard to simply say "yes, in this particular example >>> the 'return' is indeed the simplest way"? Does it hurt your pride or >>> something? >> What has pride got to do with it? It's common sense, that's all. The >> simplest way (and one of the fastest) to get from Tower Bridge Approach >> to St Katharine's Way is to jump off the bridge, but that doesn't >> necessarily mean it's the /best/ way. > > Then kindly show me this "best way". One man's best is another man's mediocre, and a third man's worst. <shrug> -- Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk> Email: -http://www. +rjh@ "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line vacant - apply within
From: Nick Keighley on 8 May 2010 21:01 On 8 May, 17:46, Tim Streater <timstrea...(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > In article > <5dd9bdc8-4dc4-4537-84a0-885c4c92f...(a)l28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > On 8 May, 01:41, Lie Ryan <lie.1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I've never heard of any programming languages that doesn't support > > > > recursion. [...] > > FORTRAN (in its original form), Coral-66 you had to use a special > > keyword to indicate a function was recursive. Some BASICs probably > > didn't alow recursion. But these all qualify as "ancient" (and maybe > > jocular!) > > What FORTRAN are you referring to. I never saw it in any FORTRAN up to > 1978 (the last time I used FORTRAN). lost me. So far as I remember FORTRAN didn't have recursion. Am I wrong? Or are you saying even modern Fortran doesn't have recursion?
From: Sjouke Burry on 8 May 2010 23:04
Nick Keighley wrote: > On 8 May, 17:46, Tim Streater <timstrea...(a)waitrose.com> wrote: >> In article >> <5dd9bdc8-4dc4-4537-84a0-885c4c92f...(a)l28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, >> Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On 8 May, 01:41, Lie Ryan <lie.1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>> I've never heard of any programming languages that doesn't support >>>>> recursion. > [...] >>> FORTRAN (in its original form), Coral-66 you had to use a special >>> keyword to indicate a function was recursive. Some BASICs probably >>> didn't alow recursion. But these all qualify as "ancient" (and maybe >>> jocular!) >> What FORTRAN are you referring to. I never saw it in any FORTRAN up to >> 1978 (the last time I used FORTRAN). > > lost me. So far as I remember FORTRAN didn't have recursion. Am I > wrong? Or are you saying even modern Fortran doesn't have recursion? If recursion does not exist, I will have to ditch quite a couple of fortran programs. There is only 1 hitch, you have to write a 3 line dummy routine, to do the calling, so a calls b , b calls a. fortran MS 5.1 and later. Also Fortran77 for Riscos (arc 320 computer) |