flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
![]() |
Author |
|
edfed
simply by coding in a real high level language.
![]() if the problem is the number of word to write, then ctrl+c and ctrl+v will act as you need. for the problem of @@: it will be unreadable to have so many crossing @@: and jmp @fx there is also topic about a macro to make @@: and @@@: look at this! ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
KIRK
edfed wrote: simply by coding in a real high level language. problem is not to write, problem is to view big and littered code about @@ - if you think, you will not get confused named labels confuse more strongly... @@@ is far from necessary for me ![]() Last edited by KIRK on 05 Dec 2007, 09:26; edited 1 time in total |
|||
![]() |
|
shoorick
1.i'm using this tool and do not ever look at import section.
2. it seems Code: start: MessageBox HWND_DESKTOP,.. with this way we can approach to usage of "goto" instead of "jmp" ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
MHajduk
KIRK,
Ad. your idea #2: you could use FASM fix directive to resolve this problem: Code: MessageBox fix invoke MessageBox, ExitProcess fix invoke ExitProcess, ; and so on for all procedures, which you want to use... Code: ; example of simplified Win32 programming using complex macro features include '%fasminc%\win32ax.inc' MessageBox fix invoke MessageBox, ExitProcess fix invoke ExitProcess, .code start: ;invoke MessageBox,HWND_DESKTOP,"Hi! I'm the example program!","Win32 Assembly",MB_OK MessageBox HWND_DESKTOP,"Hi! I'm the example program!","Win32 Assembly",MB_OK ;invoke ExitProcess,0 ExitProcess 0 .end start |
|||
![]() |
|
daluca
I posted some macros that are related to some of your ideas:
http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=7379 |
|||
![]() |
|
KIRK
daluca wrote: I posted some macros that are related to some of your ideas: yes, I see this... but invoke is better than <> and nothing is better than invoke 2MHajduk: fixes takes a lot of place |
|||
![]() |
|
vid
KIRK: both are possibe, but this way wastes too much memory.
|
|||
![]() |
|
KIRK
vid wrote: KIRK: both are possibe, but this way wastes too much memory. It happens with macroses, but can you rewrite source code of FASM? |
|||
![]() |
|
vid
Why rewrite sources? this can be done easier with macros. rewriting FASM sources for this would be really stupid idea
Also, it's better to stick to standard, customizing everything isn't much helpful, especially with such silly differences as space vs. comma, etc. |
|||
![]() |
|
KIRK
believe me, these are simple changes, but it very necessary.
and tell, that you can't do it. Last edited by KIRK on 13 Dec 2007, 12:23; edited 1 time in total |
|||
![]() |
|
Madis731
The problem why its an O(n) complexity is that what you have now is invoke and its parameters (n), but what you wish to do is implement all the (n) parameters as invokes so that it seems to relate more to an SQL query than some small assembly-written macro.
if you want to replace "invoke parmX" with "parmX" then its doable with macros, but the other way round you don't have the one and only token to hold on to. Seems like a problem where you need to dig into some include files and 'match' / 'fix' your way through them... |
|||
![]() |
|
vid
Quote: believe me, these are simple changes, but it very necessary. Quote: and tell, that you can't do it. i can, but it is a complete waste of memory, unsystematic, messy, etc... |
|||
![]() |
|
KIRK
Possibilities is same, but advantage in convenience of reading and writing code.
I am assured in it, since I know some programming languages and I well understand psychology. |
|||
![]() |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|
Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube, Twitter.
Website powered by rwasa.