Index
> Non-x86 architectures > [fasmarm] arm mov instruction |
| Author |
|
|
revolution 04 Sep 2010, 00:43
fasmarm does not support a third parameter for mov. Do you think I should add it? I've never seen anyone use it before.
Although be careful, the shift is actually a right rotation. So it should be mov r9,0xff,24 |
|||
04 Sep 2010, 00:43 |
|
|
Ptarmigan 04 Sep 2010, 01:15
revolution wrote: fasmarm does not support a third parameter for mov. Do you think I should add it? I've never seen anyone use it before. you should add or document that it is missing in the compatibility section. As I understand it mov is to the left and mvn is to the right, but I may have it backwords.... mov and the missing pseudo-intructions are the two biggest things I tripped over in learning fasmarm. Most of the text books I have on arm use the 3 parameter form.... I think the explicit form reinforces the instruction's limitation better. thanks |
|||
|
04 Sep 2010, 01:15 |
|
|
revolution 04 Sep 2010, 01:30
mov is a direct move.
mvn is an inverted move. And the shift is a right-rotation, always, for both mov and mvn. |
|||
|
04 Sep 2010, 01:30 |
|
|
Tyler 04 Sep 2010, 04:31
Ptarmigan wrote: Most of the text books I have on arm use the 3 parameter form.... I think the explicit form reinforces the instruction's limitation better. Links can be found at arm.flatassembler.net, if you can bare revolution's web page long enough to find them  .Seriously though, I would so fix that for you. I had a class in web design last year. It's nice to take a break from algorythmic thinking every once in a a while. |
|||
|
04 Sep 2010, 04:31 |
|
|
revolution 04 Sep 2010, 04:39
Tyler wrote: Seriously though, I would so fix that for you. |
|||
|
04 Sep 2010, 04:39 |
|
|
Tyler 04 Sep 2010, 04:57
No, I meant your page sucks...
The links are and were correct. |
|||
|
04 Sep 2010, 04:57 |
|
|
revolution 04 Sep 2010, 05:01
Tyler wrote: No, I meant your page sucks...  |
|||
|
04 Sep 2010, 05:01 |
|
|
Tyler 04 Sep 2010, 05:10
I noticed your source is very linear, much like asm. I'm guessing that's probably not a coincidence.
Edit: For someone not into web design, you know standards pretty well. You'd be surprised how many people in my class, at a community college, couldn't figure out that it's <br /> not <br>. Even the professor used <br> in all his examples. |
|||
|
04 Sep 2010, 05:10 |
|
|
ass0 04 Sep 2010, 05:50
<br> is for SGML (HTML), while <br/> is XML compliant (XHTML).
Did you pay to learn web design? Anyway i think i am so used to only pay for internet as a source of knowledge that everything else seems to me, a waste of money. =D _________________ 
Nombre: Aquiles Castro. Location2: about:robots |
|||
|
04 Sep 2010, 05:50 |
|
|
Tyler 04 Sep 2010, 14:53
> <br> is for SGML (HTML), while <br/> is XML compliant (XHTML).
Okay, you got me. I was an entry level course.  But to be fair, the class was all about XML and XSLT. See.
> Did you pay to learn web design? I would've had to pay if I weren't in HS. The college has an agreement with my HS to let us take college classes for free. Quote: Anyway i think i am so used to only pay for internet as a source of knowledge that everything else seems to me, a waste of money. =D |
|||
|
04 Sep 2010, 14:53 |
|
|
revolution 08 Sep 2010, 11:44
I have updated fasmarm to support the byte,rotation syntax in v1.17
|
|||
|
08 Sep 2010, 11:44 |
|
|
Ptarmigan 08 Sep 2010, 20:43
thanks a bunch!
|
|||
|
08 Sep 2010, 20:43 |
|
|
revolution 09 Sep 2010, 04:36
Just to be clear, the op reg,byte,rot and op reg,reg,byte,rot syntax is only valid in ARM mode and is valid for all the following functions:
adc, add, and, bic, cmn, cmnp, cmp, cmpp, eor, mov, mvn, orr, rsb, rsc, sbc, sub, teq, teqp, tst, tstp See the file "\ARMDOC\InstructionFormatsARM.asm" for the examples of how and where it can be used. |
|||
|
09 Sep 2010, 04:36 |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|