flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Main > flat assembler 1.67.3x

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7782
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
The new release comes today, with lately finished SSE4 support (actually I planned to have this done exactly year ago, when I implemented it partially already, but... well, I had some problems with focusing on those things in the meantime).

You can consider this final pre-release before 1.68. Other than bugfixes (if such are needed) I plan no more changes before this next stable release. Only real work left to do for 1.68 is updating the documentation.


Last edited by Tomasz Grysztar on 17 Feb 2009, 18:30; edited 1 time in total
Post 08 Feb 2009, 20:49
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Helle



Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 23
Location: Germany
Helle
Hallo,
please check PEXTRW. I think in 1.67.29 was it oK, with 1.67.30 I get another opcode (with another registers by dis-assembling). Still PEXTRB (new in 1.67.30).
Thanks!
Helle
Post 09 Feb 2009, 16:26
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7782
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
You're right, I messed it up a bit. Silent update is coming. Wink
Post 09 Feb 2009, 17:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17635
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Tomasz Grysztar wrote:
Silent update is coming. Wink
Can I suggest a fourth digit to distinguish these versions. 1.67.30.1
Post 09 Feb 2009, 17:06
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7782
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
revolution wrote:
Can I suggest a fourth digit to distinguish these versions. 1.67.30.1

Thanks, that's a good suggestion. Smile Though I only changed the number in the executable, the package is still called as it was.

Update is done, please re-download. Wink
Post 09 Feb 2009, 17:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
MazeGen



Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Posts: 977
Location: Czechoslovakia
MazeGen
Weird, I didn't see any problems with PEXTRW with 1.67.30.0. Oh well.

While testing, I found one bug, FASM 1.67.30.1 doesn't like 64-bit destination operand if source operand is MMX register:

Code:
use64

PEXTRW RAX, MM0, 1 
    
Post 09 Feb 2009, 17:30
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7782
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
Hmm, I was under the impression that old form PEXTRW (0F C5) only allowed 32-bit GPR as destination. Perhaps I used outdated docs for this one.
Post 09 Feb 2009, 17:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
MazeGen



Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Posts: 977
Location: Czechoslovakia
MazeGen
revolution wrote:
Tomasz Grysztar wrote:
Silent update is coming. Wink
Can I suggest a fourth digit to distinguish these versions. 1.67.30.1


Why not 1.67.31? Fourth digit looks a bit too much for me. And we still have 1.67.32 - 1.67.99 namespace until 1.68 is done.
Post 09 Feb 2009, 17:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7782
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
MazeGen wrote:
Why not 1.67.31? Fourth digit looks a bit too much for me. And we still have 1.67.32 - 1.67.99 namespace until 1.68 is done.

I don't want the amount of packages on the server to grow too quickly with all the small mistake fixes.
Post 09 Feb 2009, 17:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
MazeGen



Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Posts: 977
Location: Czechoslovakia
MazeGen
Tomasz Grysztar wrote:
Hmm, I was under the impression that old form PEXTRW (0F C5) only allowed 32-bit GPR as destination. Perhaps I used outdated docs for this one.

Well, it is a bit questionable. Intel just says "Extract the word specified by
imm8 from mm and move it to reg, bits 15-0. The upper bits of r32 or r64 is zeroed" so actually I may be wrong here.

EDIT:

I was under impression that "PEXTRW RAX, XMM0, 1" works so I thought it should work with MM0 register as well. When I try it now, it doesn't work. Erm.
Post 09 Feb 2009, 17:39
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4240
Location: 2018
edfed
i think fasm can be classified in two families.
stable version.
and testing versions.
then, for fasm 1.67.30
you can make it:
fasm 1.67.30T for testings, will only be updated without changing the name.
and fasm 1.67.30 for stable version that will never evolve.
Post 09 Feb 2009, 19:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7782
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
MazeGen wrote:
I was under impression that "PEXTRW RAX, XMM0, 1" works so I thought it should work with MM0 register as well. When I try it now, it doesn't work. Erm.

Right, I broke it when I was correcting the previous one. Very Happy
Please try with 1.67.30.2

edfed wrote:
i think fasm can be classified in two families.
stable version.
and testing versions.

There already is such classification - the odd minor version numbers are development versions (like 1.67.x), and the even minor version number are the stable versions (1.66 and coming 1.6Cool.
Post 10 Feb 2009, 11:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17635
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Tomasz Grysztar wrote:
and coming 1.6Cool
Hehe, version 1.6Cool

How do we type that in outside of the web browser? Laughing
Post 10 Feb 2009, 11:08
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7782
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
Hehe, right. Automatic emoticons are really annoying sometimes. Smile
Post 10 Feb 2009, 11:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17635
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
How do we say it to our friends? "I'm using version 1.6cool"

Of course as we all know programmers are far too nerdy to have friends so I guess it won't matter how we say it. Razz
Post 10 Feb 2009, 11:16
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
MazeGen



Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Posts: 977
Location: Czechoslovakia
MazeGen
Tomasz Grysztar wrote:
MazeGen wrote:
I was under impression that "PEXTRW RAX, XMM0, 1" works so I thought it should work with MM0 register as well. When I try it now, it doesn't work. Erm.

Right, I broke it when I was correcting the previous one. Very Happy
Please try with 1.67.30.2

Seems like something went wrong again, it says:
Code:
use64
PEXTRW RAX, MM0, 1    

Quote:
flat assembler version 1.67.30.2 (1248703 kilobytes memory)
pextrw_167302.asm [3]:
PEXTRW RAX, MM0, 1
error: invalid size of operand.

But this work well:
Code:
use64
PEXTRW RAX, XMM0, 1    

Razz
Post 10 Feb 2009, 13:51
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7782
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
MazeGen wrote:
But this work well:
Code:
use64
PEXTRW RAX, XMM0, 1    

Razz

But this one is the new opcode (0F 3A 15), for which the reg64 is certainly allowed as target (but not MMX register as source), while I'm still not sure about the old opcode.
Well, I may allow that for symmetry. In fact, if you put EAX as target, it still would zero-extend to RAX, thus this anyway will work correctly, won't it? Smile
Post 10 Feb 2009, 14:31
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
MazeGen



Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Posts: 977
Location: Czechoslovakia
MazeGen
Yes, you should consider if you either 1) deny 64-bit destination register if its high dword is zero-extended anyway when 32-bit one is used, 2) allow 64-bit register and issue unnecessary REX prefix, 3) allow 64-bit register, but strip REX in case it is not really needed.

I'm not sure which option is right. Second one is good if you want to get rid of reports like "I wanted RAX, but FASM gave me EAX", third one is good because it emits shorter code.

BTW, you should use shorter encoding 66 0F C5 here instead of 66 0F 3A 15. (seems like someone forgot to allow memory operand along with 0FC5, hehe)

EDIT: typo in 0F35 corrected to 0FC5


Last edited by MazeGen on 10 Feb 2009, 15:00; edited 3 times in total
Post 10 Feb 2009, 14:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7782
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
MazeGen wrote:
BTW, you should use shorter encoding 66 0F 35 here instead of 66 0F 3A 15.

It used longer encoding here because I thought that 48 prefix is not allowed for the 0F 35. I bet the best would be to just test it on some real CPU. Smile
Post 10 Feb 2009, 14:50
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
MazeGen



Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Posts: 977
Location: Czechoslovakia
MazeGen
If I'm not wrong, we can't test it because REX prefix doesn't raise any exceptions when it doesn't take effect. Misplaced REX prefix (something like 48 66 0F C5 C0 01) doesn't raise any exceptions as well.
Post 10 Feb 2009, 15:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

< 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 GitHub, YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.