flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Main > align macro (or algorithm)

Goto page Previous  1, 2
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7740
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
See http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=23957#23957 for some more alignment macro, including the multi-byte NOPs for padding.
Perhaps it should go into "Important threads" section?
Post 08 Jun 2006, 16:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
@Quantum:
LocoDelAssembly wrote:

And using NOPs in code is not too much efficient neither, anyway you can override align with your own macro

I agree Very Happy
[edit]Here another one related to AMD64 http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=4445 [/edit]


Last edited by LocoDelAssembly on 08 Jun 2006, 18:40; edited 1 time in total
Post 08 Jun 2006, 18:29
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Quantum



Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 122
Quantum
2 Tomasz Grysztar:
It actually is a very important subject, but i dont know whether it's an important thread or not.
Post 08 Jun 2006, 18:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
tomasz: it really should, but also old macro should be there fox completness.
Post 08 Jun 2006, 21:31
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7740
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
It was in the manual since ages (since 1.02, to be precise) - that's why never thought of putting here.
Post 08 Jun 2006, 21:41
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Reverend



Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 408
Location: Poland
Reverend
Why do you think placing 0CCh byte is more efficient than 90h when aligning procs? In such case, what matters is the address in memory of proc, not the preceding bytes. Or am I miising something? Does it really make any difference when changing byte value before the proc itself?
Post 08 Jun 2006, 22:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Quantum



Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 122
Quantum
2 Reverend:
Quote:

Why do you think placing 0CCh byte is more efficient than 90h when aligning procs?

I never said it's more efficient. The VC compiler uses int3 to pad procs. Maybe it expects thouse int's to fire the debugger whenever program control transfers to a padding area (because of a serious bug or a missing object).
Post 08 Jun 2006, 23:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Reverend



Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 408
Location: Poland
Reverend
locodelassembly wrote:
Anyway good point about $CC, it could be used when you align PROCs
In fact, I was referring to this quote Smile. But you Quantum may be right with the idea of debugger catching jumps to 0CCh area.
Post 09 Jun 2006, 11:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
Oooh, but I didn't say it's more efficient, only "it could be used when you align PROCs", and reason is the same that Quantum says.
Post 09 Jun 2006, 15:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.