fasmnewbie:

Quote:

I have to agree with you on some point about using the HL constructs at the beginning of the learning curve

I agree, it's your choice. When I was learning ASM (about 17-19 years ago), I never used .if because I thought it was important to learn "real ASM" first. I was a beginner, not experienced in macros and did not know what code is produced by MASM's .if/.while.

Now, I use my own .if to increase production, especially in my main source files for calling and general program flow. Iczelion was a famous ASM programmer who used .if/.while/etc very clean and professionally in 30+ WinASM examples: http://win32assembly.programminghorizon.com/tutorials.html

I_inc wrote:

Quote:

If you're interested in more opinions, then mine is the opposite one

My opinion is that we should be allowed to write code however we want. It is John with his communist mentality who tries to take away their freedom and impose a style on them that can't be logically defended.

Quote:

I'd suggest C

So, you recommend using a C compiler instead of FASM (as if all C compilers are the same). Why would you assume that any random assembler (for C compiler) is better than FASM? Why should we not use FASM as the assembler/linker/backend? Which assembler is best for this purpose?

Quote:

I don't find any of the uart777's arguments to be valid

Advantages of .if versus cmp-jxx

* .if can be portable, compatible with any CPU: X86, ARM, MIPS, JVM, etc. On ARM - most widely used CPU in the world - cmp v1, 12345678h and cmp v1, [m] are not real ASM instructions, you'd have to create HL macros to support them.
* cmp-jxx requires the programmer to manually create labels whereas .if automatically generates unique labels.
* .if is easy to translate to/from other languages, algorithms and pseudo code.
* .if does not require the programmer to stop and think to invert the condition. Example: "if less" = "if not greater or equal".
* .if condition is written on the same line.
* .if can be edited and/or extended to support calls.
* .if is designed for high-volume production and making real-life applications.
* .if is pure English. "cmp" is not a real word

Here are some arguments that I would love for you to disprove. I challenge anyone to improve my design for a HL compiler: http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=15588

…why brilliant HLL students perform so badly during the assembly courses.

John meant nothing bad though.

My main issue with .if is the inability to track the code flow. The code flow is important for developing the fastest running code. I am talking about the default branch prediction. Predicted conditional branches are faster.

Anyway, trying to outperform compiler at optimizing using fasm macros is futile attempt, I think.

So, don't even try?

Don't use goto

So, you recommend using a C compiler instead of FASM

Guys, use copy/paste for nicknames, l_inc is neither i_inc nor I_inc

my grandfather taught me one precious lesson: "use proper tool for each task"

I'm still waiting for a language that have equivalent of Forth's BEGIN … WHILE … REPEAT loop

I write good code with good label names

; if r0=0, r0=r1+(r2>>16)
; else, r1=r2-(r3>>16)

; ARM: 3 instructions

tst r0, r0
addeq r0, r1, r2, lsr 16
subne r1, r2, r3, lsr 16

; X86 equivelant: 9 instructions, 2 labels
; + possible branch misprediction penalty

test eax, eax
jnz .a
shr edx, 16
add ecx, edx
mov eax, ecx
jmp .b
.a:
shr ebx, 16
sub edx, ebx
mov ecx, edx
.b:    

fasmnewbie wrote:

…why brilliant HLL students perform so badly during the assembly courses.

Not a bug surprise, to me at least. HLLs introduce many abstract concepts that are not inherent to machine code (and assembly language mainly thereof). Even C (that's what I call high-level assembler ) suffers from that. While comma operator is understandable and straightforward (do something and enjoy side-effects), ternary ?: often is a point to stumble upon (I mean efficient LL implementation).

int myVar; 
printf ("The address is %p\n", myVar);    

If EDX:EAX .is_equal. dword [variable_high]:dword[variable_low] .and. ECX:EBX .is_less_than. dword[variable2_high]:dword[variable2_low] 
do something here to dword[variable_high]:dword[variable_low]
...more multiple comparisons, ad nasium