Index
> High Level Languages > C++ Pointers vs References in Full-Effect! |
| Author |
|
|
iic2 19 Feb 2011, 18:45
No way do I plan to abandon ASM coding but I do plan to understand C++ and JAVA and than try OPP's in ASM for kicks and if it act right, I'll use it.
I google the first half of those key words and got this most interesting link just created and proven under an hour after flames were thrown. http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/beginner/3958/ |
|||
19 Feb 2011, 18:45 |
|
|
typedef 21 Feb 2011, 19:13
Dude use Pelles C for Windows......
it uses the same FASM ASM syntax. inline ASM is what I'm talking about. It's good I recommend it. http://www.pellesc.de/index.php?page=download&lang=en&version=6.50 I find GCC assembler shitty and difficult to use because you have to enclose the instructions in qoutes like "MOV EAX,2" and then you get an error saying not enough Memory for "MOV" operaction (LMAO). |
|||
|
21 Feb 2011, 19:13 |
|
|
typedef 22 Feb 2011, 19:17
^That's not the case.
In case you come across a time where inline ASM is critically needed. |
|||
|
22 Feb 2011, 19:17 |
|
|
f0dder 22 Feb 2011, 19:22
typedef wrote: In case you come across a time where inline ASM is critically needed. The only thing I can think of off top of my head would be some extremely specific low-level kernel function... that would probably still be better done as a complete assembly module, or suggest reworking the code that "needs" inline assembly  _________________  - carpe noctem |
|||
|
22 Feb 2011, 19:22 |
|
|
typedef 22 Feb 2011, 19:24
f0dder wrote: some extremely specific low-level kernel function. |
|||
|
22 Feb 2011, 19:24 |
|
|
f0dder 22 Feb 2011, 19:28
...which is probably still better written as an external assembly module, or reworked. I can't come up with any samples where inline assembly is a substantially better solution than external assembly.
|
|||
|
22 Feb 2011, 19:28 |
|
|
typedef 22 Feb 2011, 20:01
f0dder wrote: inline assembly is a substantially better solution than external assembly. Huh? Code obfuscation, Encryption (Especially when making self unpackers) Saving bytes of loading an external module and using inline ASM |
|||
|
22 Feb 2011, 20:01 |
|
|
f0dder 22 Feb 2011, 20:11
I don't see where inline assembly has an advantage for those scenarios, really. For both de/compression and de/encryption, an external assembly module works just fine (do realize I mean a .asm->.obj linked with your .exe and not a .dll).
Yes, "emit" is necessary if you do ancient "mark code blocks for external tool", but who uses that method these days? If you want effective code obfuscation, you work at the .obj level, or write a compiler for a custom VM. |
|||
|
22 Feb 2011, 20:11 |
|
|
typedef 22 Feb 2011, 20:25
f0dder wrote: but who uses that method these days? Did I say I use it ? I just said in case of such scenarios that's when they are needed. Broah !  |
|||
|
22 Feb 2011, 20:25 |
|
|
f0dder 22 Feb 2011, 20:27
typedef wrote: I just said in case of such scenarios that's when they are needed.
Why restrict yourself to inline assembly when 1) it's not really necessary 2) syntax is limited compared to a full assembler 3) it limits you to one (or a few) C compilers ? |
|||
|
22 Feb 2011, 20:27 |
|
|
typedef 22 Feb 2011, 20:29
f0dder wrote: Why restrict yourself to inline assembly when Restriction ? 
How about practice ? Heh |
|||
|
22 Feb 2011, 20:29 |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|