Index
> Main > Would you like to have removed redundant instructions? |
| Would you like to have removed redundant instructions? | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Votes : 15 |
| Author |
|
|
revolution 16 Sep 2011, 13:21
What is your reasoning for removing them? They encode to the same binary, the only extra storage is in the assembler opcode list.
Personally I find it useful to have both JA and JNBE etc. Depending upon the circumstances it helps to understand the code easier when selecting the appropriate mnemonic. |
|||
16 Sep 2011, 13:21 |
|
|
Teehee 16 Sep 2011, 13:24
the main purpose is to keep a pattern. in high-lvl-lang we have a few options: <, >, <=, >=, !=, ==, so i was thougth to keep things simplier. Of course they use symbols instead textual instruction. So i was wondering if it would be better doing so in a textual context.
Last edited by Teehee on 16 Sep 2011, 13:28; edited 1 time in total |
|||
|
16 Sep 2011, 13:24 |
|
|
revolution 16 Sep 2011, 13:28
Assembly != HLL
|
|||
|
16 Sep 2011, 13:28 |
|
|
Teehee 16 Sep 2011, 13:33
if you consider a disassembler, it will choose one of them to use always. doesn't? unless, for example, if it was able to find a switch/case context and put je instead jz in that context. Or, yet, using JE after CMP instructions and JZ after TEST inst. Things like that.
yeah, not HLL, but that doens't mean you can't make things easier/simplier. |
|||
|
16 Sep 2011, 13:33 |
|
|
revolution 16 Sep 2011, 13:43
I don't bother with the disassembler case, I deal with source code. Anything that makes my source code easier to understand is not a bad thing.
Anyhow, if you want to remove some mnemonics then go ahead, just that you won't find me being one of the users of your assembler. > "make things easier/simplier". Simpler for who? The author of the assembler? Easier for who? The author of the assembler? |
|||
|
16 Sep 2011, 13:43 |
|
|
Teehee 16 Sep 2011, 13:45
to the user dear revolution
This is the purpose of this poll: if you like or not, if it is simplier for you or not. If no one like i will keep them. Particulary, in a programming context, i don't like to have many options to make the same thing. Again: in a object oriented context thats not a good thing. Do you think there is some problem to take some of this principles and apply in assembly context? You are a traditional assembly guy  Last edited by Teehee on 16 Sep 2011, 14:04; edited 1 time in total |
|||
|
16 Sep 2011, 13:45 |
|
|
revolution 16 Sep 2011, 14:01
I can't see how it makes it simpler for the user
Let's see: Code: cmp ...
je somewhere
cmovne reg1,reg2 User says: Hmm, which one was it again that is allowed? Oh, it must be JZ. Try again with JZ. Code: cmp ...
jz somewhere
cmovne reg1,reg2 User says: AARRGHH, this is very frustrating! |
|||
|
16 Sep 2011, 14:01 |
|
|
Teehee 16 Sep 2011, 14:05
haha yeah that may happen to a non-new assembly users
I think the tradition will say strong in this context, Hmmm. Im already considering* as a bad thing! *considering to remove the redundant structions |
|||
|
16 Sep 2011, 14:05 |
|
|
ouadji 16 Sep 2011, 14:33
Quote: Personally I find it useful to have both JA and JNBE etc. _________________ I am not young enough to know everything (Oscar Wilde)-  |
|||
|
16 Sep 2011, 14:33 |
|
|
Teehee 16 Sep 2011, 14:39
well, me too
|
|||
|
16 Sep 2011, 14:39 |
|
|
Overflowz 16 Sep 2011, 19:20
No way!
|
|||
|
16 Sep 2011, 19:20 |
|
|
typedef 16 Sep 2011, 22:46
troll...
|
|||
|
16 Sep 2011, 22:46 |
|
|
edfed 17 Sep 2011, 12:23
Code: cmp eax,[value] je equal test eax,2 jz zero revolution gave the only true reason of duplicate mnemonics, it depends on the circumstances, and help to remember what the code is intented to do. |
|||
|
17 Sep 2011, 12:23 |
|
|
Teehee 17 Sep 2011, 16:23
7 votes no. it seems an unanimity about to do not to remove these instructions. Thanks for replies and rev. for the arguments.
|
|||
|
17 Sep 2011, 16:23 |
|
|
edfed 17 Sep 2011, 16:31
8
|
|||
|
17 Sep 2011, 16:31 |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|