flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
![]() |
Author |
|
LocoDelAssembly 02 Nov 2008, 04:11
True, have you found any documentation backing that? I know it is true, but I never found where the documentation imposes such alignment constraint (maybe I was too blind).
[edit] BTW, align 4 or align 8? I though it was the latter |
|||
![]() |
|
revolution 02 Nov 2008, 05:10
I always align dwords to 4 and qwords to 8 as a matter of standard. There is really no reason why predefined data declarations would not be aligned.
As to why the functions fails, well that is hard to know. It could be a hang over from the original NT days with the Alpha and Motorola CPUs not being so friendly about alignment. And putting in the necessary alignment fixup code into a high performance counter function is likely to create an overhead that is out of proportion with the intended use. |
|||
![]() |
|
hopcode 07 Nov 2008, 15:52
LocoDelAssembly wrote: True, have you found any documentation backing that?...BTW, align 4 or align 8? I though it was the latter No,at the moment. I am investigating...I can only imagine why, but i am not at all sure... Pheraps this ALIGN 4/8 (4 should be already sufficient) is in a way related with the structure of KUSER_SHARED_DATA (look at this thread ) ... |
|||
![]() |
|
asmcoder 10 Nov 2008, 09:55
[content deleted]
Last edited by asmcoder on 14 Aug 2009, 14:55; edited 1 time in total |
|||
![]() |
|
bitshifter 10 Nov 2008, 10:03
That is very strange.
Is the LARGE_INTEGER defined as global or local? Maybe try pushing 4 word values and using call instead. |
|||
![]() |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|
Copyright © 1999-2025, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube.
Website powered by rwasa.