flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
Index
> Compiler Internals > lea eax,[ebx + 1.7E4] |
Author |
|
revolution 15 Nov 2011, 00:01
ouadji wrote: It is the responsibility of the programmer to make sense of this, |
|||
15 Nov 2011, 00:01 |
|
typedef 15 Nov 2011, 00:19
Laugh Out Loud
|
|||
15 Nov 2011, 00:19 |
|
smiddy 15 Nov 2011, 04:45
Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off
|
|||
15 Nov 2011, 04:45 |
|
ouadji 15 Nov 2011, 09:48
it's not the compiler to choose what does make sense and what does not. Here, it's not a matter about the sémantic field, but a matter of dialectic. It seems that the top-flight thought is not accessible to everyone. Quote: and trying to use them as address offsets is silly. "lea" can be used for many other things and all algorithms are possible. |
|||
15 Nov 2011, 09:48 |
|
revolution 15 Nov 2011, 10:39
Do you have a situation where it would make sense? What were you trying to do when you encountered this "problem"?
|
|||
15 Nov 2011, 10:39 |
|
typedef 15 Nov 2011, 11:13
He thought FASM would convert 1.7E4 to it's 32 bit equivalent.
and therefore end up with lea eax, [ebx + 4684D000h] What a fail.... still LOL-ing |
|||
15 Nov 2011, 11:13 |
|
ouadji 15 Nov 2011, 11:19
Quote: Do you have a situation where it would make sense? fasm should not limit the ability of the programmer by hypotheses about the sense or the nonsense of a line of code. it's not his role. Here, the compiler makes an assumption,his function is not to make assumptions. (sorry for my bad english, i do my best) |
|||
15 Nov 2011, 11:19 |
|
Tomasz Grysztar 15 Nov 2011, 11:28
It was allowed once: http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=12398#12398
But later (sometime around 1.59) it was disallowed once again, because people were keeping reporting this as a bug and with later parser improvements it was no longer needed even for macros. |
|||
15 Nov 2011, 11:28 |
|
ouadji 15 Nov 2011, 11:42
still "LOL-ing" typedef ? thank you Tomasz for this reply. |
|||
15 Nov 2011, 11:42 |
|
cod3b453 15 Nov 2011, 19:22
tbh it made me laugh too.
1.7E4 has more than one possible representation, so it's probably a good thing that it has to be done specifically via macros/defines. |
|||
15 Nov 2011, 19:22 |
|
Madis731 22 Nov 2011, 08:31
1.7E4 == 17000? 0x4268
What a confusion |
|||
22 Nov 2011, 08:31 |
|
ouadji 22 Nov 2011, 10:25
1.7E4f |
|||
22 Nov 2011, 10:25 |
|
mindcooler 22 Nov 2011, 14:15
1.7e4.0
|
|||
22 Nov 2011, 14:15 |
|
ouadji 22 Nov 2011, 17:43
1.7E4.0 Code: mov eax, 1.7E4.0 ;does not compile mov eax, 1.7E4f ;does compile |
|||
22 Nov 2011, 17:43 |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|
Copyright © 1999-2024, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube.
Website powered by rwasa.