flat assembler 1.57

Index > Main > flat assembler 1.57

Goto page Previous 1, 2

Author

Thread

vid
Verbosity in development

Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia

vid 23 Jan 2005, 19:11

rather dont use @@ in macros, i prefer macro-local labels, because then use can still use @f/@b jump over macro, with your version it will be hard-to-find bug.

Also prepend all labels by ".."

Code:

macro fldq dfloat 
{ 
     local ..mynumber,..here
     jmp ..here
     align 8 
     ..mynumber dq dfloat 
..here: 
     fld [mynumber] 
    ;more of your code here 
}

see http://decard.net/?body=tajga&chapter=preproc#local

23 Jan 2005, 19:11

madmatt

Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 1045
Location: Michigan, USA

madmatt 24 Jan 2005, 09:09

All right, thanks for the correction
MadMatt

24 Jan 2005, 09:09

Tomasz Grysztar

Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 8351
Location: Kraków, Poland

Tomasz Grysztar 28 Jan 2005, 13:00

Quote:

thoug, I'd really want to beable to make it:
Code:
movq [variablename], 1.0f    

I have an interesting solution to make such kind of macros, but it causes one problem. The idea is to allow the syntax like:

Code:

mov [var][4],eax ; the same as mov [var+4],eax
mov dword ptr var[4],eax ; the same as mov dword ptr var+4,eax

It's very easy to add such feature to parser (I can post the quick instructions how to make if anyone's interested), the only trouble is that it causes a problem with the constructs like:

Code:

push [var1] [var2]

which are allowed and I was even using the in fasm sources. With such feature enabled this would be interpreted as "push [var1+var2]", so it wouldn't be assembled correctly. I don't know if this feature would be worth such breaking the backward compatibility.

28 Jan 2005, 13:00

vid
Verbosity in development

Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia

vid 28 Jan 2005, 13:26

i dont like it, or any overbloating of syntax at all.
This way we will end up in M$ like
mov ax,a = mov ax, word a = mov ax, word ptr a = mov ax, word ptr [a] = mov ax,[a] etc.

28 Jan 2005, 13:26

scientica
Retired moderator

Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 689
Location: Linköping, Sweden

scientica 28 Jan 2005, 14:19

Quote:

Code:
mov [var][4],eax ; the same as mov [var+4],eax
mov dword ptr var[4],eax ; the same as mov dword ptr var+4,eax    
It's very easy to add such feature to parser (I can post the quick instructions how to make if anyone's interested), the only trouble is that it causes a problem with the constructs like:

hmm.. IMO that notation causes more consufion than good :/

maybew some "macromatic lea" (name sugesstion: 'mlea' or 'mea') would be better? eg:

Code:

variable = [labelName]
varname = mea variable+4 ; preprocessed to:  varname = labelName+4
varname = mea [variable+4] ; becomming (thoug "illegal" syntax): "varname = variable+4" => "varname = [labelName]+4"

mea could work at fix/equ "level" to prevent [a+b] from 'expanding' (eg if a=1; b=2 mea [a+b] == '1+2'/'3' instead of (the desired) 'a+b' )

28 Jan 2005, 14:19

pelaillo
Missing in inaction

Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Posts: 878
Location: Colombia

pelaillo 28 Jan 2005, 19:19

I never liked that syntax at all. This is one of the kind of things I dislike from the Masm syntax.

28 Jan 2005, 19:19

JohnFound

Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3499
Location: Bulgaria

JohnFound 28 Jan 2005, 20:40

pelaillo wrote:

This is one of the kind of things I dislike from the Masm syntax.

Me too.

28 Jan 2005, 20:40

madmatt

Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 1045
Location: Michigan, USA

madmatt 28 Jan 2005, 22:19

I wouldn't want a solution that would case more problems than it solves. The macro I made seems to work good, but I don't know what kind of perfomance hits, if any, this method will cause.
MadMatt

28 Jan 2005, 22:19

iklin

Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 120
Location: Russia, Siberia

iklin 29 Jan 2005, 06:26

JohnFound wrote:

pelaillo wrote:
This is one of the kind of things I dislike from the Masm syntax.

Me too.

And me too

29 Jan 2005, 06:26

Tomasz Grysztar

Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 8351
Location: Kraków, Poland

Tomasz Grysztar 29 Jan 2005, 09:05

I'm so glad to finally hear it from many people (after all those emails of "why can't I do this, with MASM I can!" style). Wink

29 Jan 2005, 09:05

Goto page Previous 1, 2

< Last Thread | Next Thread >

Forum Rules:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum