u32@eax CRC32(buffer@esi, dword_count@ecx) {
    eax = -1;
    do {
        eax ^= [esi++];
        bl = 32;
        do { eax >>= 1; if (CF) eax ^= 0xEDB88320; } while (--bl);
    } loop;
    eax ^= -1;
}    

bogdan: I think that is a bit too much emotions going in. Wouldn't it be enough to just delete HLL vs. Asm offtopic, and keep supporting the standardization, which you yourself support? I think by doing this you could badly hurt the effort.

One alternative solution I see to this issue would be that I do moderate Agner.

I did not wanted to do this because after all it was his request and because of this I considered removing the forums a better solution. But if we want to save what can be saved from the ideas and discussions then I would have to remove the HLL glorification parts from Agner's posts and do so in any other future posts also.

This would also imply a more drastic set of rules for this sub forum that would exclude the praise for HLL benefits over ASM and not allowing posts that try to diminish the importance of ASM or areas of ASM use in modern or future world.

Agner also made statements about how MASM would disappear in the future because it is not profitable etc... this would also have to go.

HLL topics would be allowed only if they refer to interoperability or compatibility with ASM and will be secondary in importance to ASM core discussions. ASM comes first on an ASM standardization forum.

I will also disallow wars in between assemblers like in: "my assembler syntax is so much better than your assembler's syntax", all assemblers have to be considered with an open mind and I would recommend a move to favor ASM concepts versus "form" although it is clear that some example of forms have to be documented and recommended.

At least one or two alternative syntax forms to the well know MASM syntax should also be recommended and a place for smaller ASM syntax variations should be provided.

IMHO this will not be a standard obtained by collapsing all current syntax variations into a single unique one but a standard by conceptual unity in a diversity of form.

I will not support the "rape" of the minority by imposing the will of the majority over it and I will also not support the alternative of imposing the will of a minority "elite" over the majority. Both alternatives are wrong and we need another solution.

Additionally I am "well known" to consider GPL and open source as a "disease" of programming and very detrimental to human race's evolution. Hence I would also not allow praise or glorification of such practices.

If this set of more strict rules are acceptable to Agner and other important participants then I will again open the forums for discussion...

But this won't help too far if you have C code and as long as GCC can't brew anything except AT&T

I think that is a bit too much emotions going in.

gcc -S -masm=intel XYZ.c -o XYZ.s