> On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>
> > There are no secrets on how this is done. Any competent assembly-
> > language programmer would use this technique as a trade-off of RAM v.s.
> > speed. The GNU pseudo-assem prevents me from porting this to Linux.
>
> Why not use the GNU as? Won't this do what you require, Richard?
>
> Cheers,
> Alex.
Because I'll be damned if I'll let perfectly correct Intel assembly-
language code get mangled to:
xxx.asm: Assembler messages:
xxx.asm:6: Error: operands given don't match any known 386 instruction
xxx.asm:9: Error: Ignoring junk '[bp-10]' after expression
xxx.asm:9: Error: operands given don't match any known 386 instruction
... by an assembler that doesn't know Intel Assembly, but pretends so.
It is thoretically possible to convert correct code to GNU `as` junk,
however, the damn thing doesn't even do MACROs so if I am going to
make:
adc eax, [ebx+1000]
adc eax, [ebx+996]
adc eax, [ebx+992]
... etc.. a thousand times I would certainly
want to use another tool. It also doesn't know how to write
a byte to a memory location, i.e., it doesn't know about the PTR
expression to tell it whether to write a byte, a word, or a longword
to a memory location when you do something like:
mov variable,0
That's why we have BYTE PTR, WORD PTR, DWORD PTR, etc. Otherwise a
zero could (and does) smash adjacent data. It's a very bad tool.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
Penguin : Linux version 2.1.127 on an i586 machine (66.15 BogoMips).
Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/