Index
> Macroinstructions > bug in 'if' macro? |
| Author |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 16 May 2006, 18:15
One quick fix info before I update the package:
Code: ; Fixed fragment of IF.INC match (,symb \\\{ parsed equ parsed neg@cond,< define nest@cond + define symb@cond define neg@cond ; <- INSERTED LINE \\\} match any,symb@cond \\\{ parsed equ parsed neg@cond,symb@cond define status@cond + define neg@cond ; <- INSERTED LINE \\\} PS. The macros are not versioned like fasm's core is. The fasmw package may get updated without any change to the core (also editor is versioned independently, the macros are currently versioned only by date). |
|||
16 May 2006, 18:15 |
|
|
vid 16 May 2006, 18:22
can you give examples of cases where it doesn't work?
|
|||
|
16 May 2006, 18:22 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 16 May 2006, 18:28
As for the "ax&bx | cx&dx", note that in fasm (I mean the regular IF), the & and | operators have exactly the same precedence, so they are executed simply from left to right (just like multiplication and division, or addition and substraction). Those macros reproduce the same behavior here, too. Thus
Code: .if ax & bx | cx & dx is equivalent to: Code: .if ( (ax & bx) | cx ) & dx and generated code is correct in this case. |
|||
|
16 May 2006, 18:28 |
|
|
quiveror 17 May 2006, 10:45
IMHO, the & should have higher precedence than |. This would be great because it would conform to the C language (and many others) defacto standard and a bit easier for newcomers to get used to fasm too.
Anyway, I've been using fasm for quite a while but never notice this. The fact surprises me indeed  |
|||
|
17 May 2006, 10:45 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 17 May 2006, 13:28
I made it this way because for my own understanding it's more natural than the "defacto standard". You should anyway always use square brackets if you're not sure how it would be interpreted.
|
|||
|
17 May 2006, 13:28 |
|
|
Aster!x 22 May 2006, 08:08
But if there are no brackets the interpreter should follow the C standard, i think
|
|||
|
22 May 2006, 08:08 |
|
|
okasvi 22 May 2006, 08:10
why should assembler follow C standard?
and anyway it's just a macro, anyone not liking it can make a new one |: |
|||
|
22 May 2006, 08:10 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 22 May 2006, 09:36
It's just a macro, but it reproduces the same operators precedence that fasm uses internally (for assembler-processed IF conditions).
|
|||
|
22 May 2006, 09:36 |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|