flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > the world is waiting for ...

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Vov4ik



Joined: 20 May 2007
Posts: 28
Location: USSR, Moscow Region
Vov4ik
OzzY Hot everywhere? Smile My thermometer shows about 17 degrees below zero. But i am preparing for exam instead of walking Neutral Moreover, there are little snow as yet, but forecast promises snow quite soon Smile
Post 08 Jan 2008, 09:59
View user's profile Send private message ICQ Number Reply with quote
Pixelator



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 13
Location: Over there
Pixelator
Quote:

in my part of the world everyone is waiting for the USA to self destruct and leave the rest of the world to do as they always have and cease this crusade of dictating democracy Wink


Look, i know we sound kinda in a rush to get most of the countries on earth to be democratic, but we are in no way dictating it. That would be against our constitution Wink If the countries our klutz of a president approaches doesn't want to be democratic, we are fine to let them opt for a different for of government. Usually, we won't approach countries like that. Its just the dictatorships with dictators who mame their people Wink

So please don't assume that the USA wants everyone to be exactly like us, cuz when you assume you make an ass out of u and me

_________________
Do not your will but the Lord's will.
Post 10 Jan 2008, 01:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
Plato wrote:
The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men.
I've commited a crime and presently severing my sentence. Confused
Post 10 Jan 2008, 04:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
waiting for world war III?
possible reasons:
too much people,
not enought houses,
not enought job,
too much unemployed people,
too much human migration,
not enought money inna pocket,
not enought brotherhood,
too much TV/internet/ipod/secondlife
too much vista and customising,
etc etc...
so world is waiting for WW3, with hopeness...
and i'm waiting for the end of my life...fed up of this strange world.

good night
Post 10 Jan 2008, 04:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
it could be in the near future,
people would set up their business at places like starbuck, coffee shop, restaurant.

so, u bring a laptop, offering a service/solution, and ur customer come to met u at those coffee shops.

maybe we could start giving laptop a valid mail address.
maybe GPS coordinate...
Post 16 Jan 2008, 01:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
yes, it's not a bad idea at all...
and by the way, we (developpers) can have virtual shops, without any restrictions.
a 3D shop could be nice for program vendors.
and a real meeting in a real coffe (café) can help to make some collaborations.
i agree with this need.
need to work queitly were we want, when we want, and what we want...
and about the old worker model, it's obsolete, going at office everydays, with all the problems of polution, is not good.
working in factories is not that bad, only factory workers are still needed in current economic model.
all others, people that do not make real transformations on real objects don't need to take the bus everydays for work.
they can make it everywhere, the difficult part is to be sure the employee effectivelly work.
Quote:
maybe we could start giving laptop a valid mail address.
maybe GPS coordinate...

and why not giving each computer a unique linear 64bit address, located in international segment?
and focus the net data communication on the X86 arch?
this will increase treading speed on web...
and then,browsers will display the code of a page as a disassembled code.
Post 16 Jan 2008, 01:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i heard last time intel trying to do something like processor unique id, but ... people don't want maybe due to privacy issue.

i could imagine individual, sit on coffee house (coz nowadays, u could find free wifi very easy), (maybe whole day long) like their office, then do business from there.

maybe i should set an example myself by be the first to do so... Razz
Post 16 Jan 2008, 17:22
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
madmatt wrote:
Without the US the world would have self destructed long ago, Remember the last two world wars!!? All of that BS started in europe!!! And Vid, maybe you'd rather be ruled by the Nazi's where anything NOT blue-eyed and blond haired gets thrown into the fires!! Or Hell, maybe ruled by Russia, just looks whats going on in Chechnya, how would you like that on your doorstep? I admit this war in Iraq is one of our darker moments in history. But I'm tired of everyone beating up on the US!!, especially from countries that done little more that war with each other for centuries, if not millenium, and then the US has to come in and clean up the mess!!! That includes the Asian nations as well!!
SO SHUT THE F**K UP, YOU GOOSE STEPPING SH*T HEADS, YOUR THE LAST PEOPLE TO BE TELLING THE U.S. WHAT WRONG AND WHATS RIGHT!!!!!
Please tell me your entire post was written with HEAVY sarcasm, and/or that you were going through a manic episode at the time.
If not, you have damaged my faith in humanity... considerably. As in "Damn, I never would have imagined a human being could be that demented, god save us all should it somehow spread its genes.."


tom tobias wrote:
on the contrary would much rather be debating the merits of employing Boolean operators only for Boolan functions, (instead of incorrectly, to merely clear a register,)
Why do you hate "xor reg,reg" so much? Can you just not stand the way it looks? If so, use a macro.


vid wrote:
i think the world was waiting for FASMLIB. Especially due to massive feedback i recieve Very Happy Wink
Same here. Smile



edfed wrote:
waiting for world war III?
possible reasons:
too much people,
not enought houses,
not enought job,
too much unemployed people,
too much human migration,
not enought money inna pocket,
not enought brotherhood,
too much TV/internet/ipod/secondlife
too much vista and customising,
etc etc...
so world is waiting for WW3, with hopeness...
and i'm waiting for the end of my life...fed up of this strange world.

good night
WW3 will destroy many houses, jobs, resources, lands, and money.. and make lots of people migrate to escape the battles. Razz



MichaelH wrote:
Thank you Tom for once again reminding me there are Americans that I can respect. After reading MattBro's racist rant I needed your level headed input Wink

rugxulo, just to restate what I was meaning that Tom explained so well, Japan was defeated, there was no justification to drop those nuclear bombs, yet it was still done. For many decades now the super powers have battled and perpetrated unspeakable evil against innocent people in the belief their ideology was the correct one never once stopping to consider capitalism and socialism go hand in hand and any one ideology on it's own only leads to some group being disadvantaged, ending in civil/global unrest.


kohlrak, I know you are young but I hope you realise these debates are not only about Bush. Please reread Tom's post again to get some perspective on things. The world has been angry at the USA for many decades now and this belief of the young that it's all about recent events concern me greatly as it seems most people from the US are completely unaware of the role they played in the past.


Quote:

So let me say all Americans really Have to do is realize that ignorance isn't bliss. History never forced them to realize it so far.


Great line DustWolf Smile

There was a justification for it. The same one as always; "Because we can! Might makes right! Take that, you stupid civilians! Let this be an example to anyone who even DARES considering opposing us, for we are America, the only country grandiose enough to name itself two whole continents!"




WytRaven wrote:
Well I'm not sure what part of the world you a from vid, but in my part of the world everyone is waiting for the USA to self destruct and leave the rest of the world to do as they always have and cease this crusade of dictating democracy Wink Merry Christmas by the way, and thanx for the work you are putting into fasmlib it is appreciated.
You hit the nail on the head with that one.
And the fact that most countries are even worse only serves to exacerbate how much of a P.O.S. it is.
Post 08 Jun 2009, 08:18
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
Azu wrote:
Hey, why do you hate "xor reg,reg" so much?

I don't agree with the prevailing practice of using a boolean operator to clear a register. I accept the perfectly reasonable rejoinder that zero is the logical consequence of performing an exclusive or operation on two variables with identical values.

The problem arises in a scenario where one seeks to perform a genuine Boolean operation, NOT simply clearing one register, for example, XOR eax ecx.

My claim, unaccepted by any FASM forumer that I know of, is that readability is the key to debugging, and if one has a printed page full of XOR reg,reg, it is not going to be facile to distinguish the error: XOR eax,ebx --> rather than XOR eax,ecx.

I think that most people write xor reg, reg, to clear reg, not because the boolean operation is transparent, but because of habit, and SPEED of writing code. I am disinterested in code. I like PROGRAMMING, i.e. NOT writing quickly, but rather, first defining the variables, after having elaborated the algorithm, then the control logic. I always liked the expression:

The hurrieder I run, the behinder I get.

Debugging a program, and its sister, modifying a program, represent someone else's problem, in the minds of many FASM forumers. In my mind, readability is paramount, both for debugging, and especially, for future program modifiability.

The code on FASM forum frequently goes a step beyond this simple outline. Many FASM forumers go out of their way to deliberately write obscure code, and readability is anathematic to them. For example, some adolescent types put little insults into their text, in very small fonts, so as to be nearly invisible.

There are also many confused FASM forumers who mistakenly imagine that Assembly language is supposed to be difficult to understand, and read, and accordingly urge those of us, i.e. me, who assert the importance of readability, to employ some other language. They would prefer to write xor reg, reg, even if there were some inherent architectural advantage to writing mov reg, zero, simply to lend credence to the hypothesis that they are "genuine", "authentic" assembly language programmers.

The most confused group of folks are those FASM forumers who assert the almighty importance of saving execution time, else, saving memory, by employing xor reg, reg, versus mov reg, zero. This utterly nonsensical notion may have had some validity for the wretched Intel architecture, thirty years ago. Times change. Some folks are stuck in the past. These days, there is no measureable speed advantage for one method or another in a task with a human operator. Two programs, otherwise identical, but one in which all register clearing is done by xor, and the other by mov, will appear indistinguishable to the human. Memory is free.

Azu wrote:
If you don't like the way it looks, just make a macro so that you can write mov reg,0 and it compiles to xor reg,reg.. best of both worlds!

I feel very sorry for you, Azu. XOR reg,reg is not a problem of esthetics.

Your "solution" is nonsensical, because now you have introduced another potential source of error. Far from having the "best of both worlds", you have created a nightmare for debugging.
But, more importantly, at least from my perspective, you have demonstrated, with this comment, that you really do not comprehend the fundamental point:

xor reg,reg NO LONGER offers a measureable speed advantage in clearing a register.

Yes, you are correct, that in 1979, xor reg,reg was measureably faster than mov reg, zero. It is no longer 1979. It is UNNECESSARY to write a macro to change mov reg,zero to xor reg reg. One does not require xor reg,reg in order to have a program execute optimally.

I do not "hate" xor reg,reg, nor the people who write such silly nonsense.

I do dislike, very much, expensive software that is unreadable, hence difficult to modify, thus requiring one to continue to employ the creator of the software, in order to make changes, over time.

The main advantage of cryptic code versus readable program is economic, and FASM forumers, unfortunately, learn these practices from the forum's luminaries, and then concoct theories to justify their conduct. A typical illustration of this is found with the infernal @@ symbol.

Why is @@@@ employed in nearly every FASM snippet of code? Half of those using @@@ are dyslexic. The remainder think, or at least thought, that having lots of undefined symbols and unreadable code gives their chunk of creativity a special nuance, a particular rung in the ladder of professionalism. According to this demented way of thinking, a "program" which is opaque must be the real McCoy.

I don't have any hair left, so I can't pull any more out, every time I encounter @@@@ or xor.

Smile
Post 08 Jun 2009, 11:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
tom tobias wrote:
Azu wrote:
Hey, why do you hate "xor reg,reg" so much?

I don't agree with the prevailing practice of using a boolean operator to clear a register. I accept the perfectly reasonable rejoinder that zero is the logical consequence of performing an exclusive or operation on two variables with identical values.

The problem arises in a scenario where one seeks to perform a genuine Boolean operation, NOT simply clearing one register, for example, XOR eax ecx.

My claim, unaccepted by any FASM forumer that I know of, is that readability is the key to debugging, and if one has a printed page full of XOR reg,reg, it is not going to be facile to distinguish the error: XOR eax,ebx --> rather than XOR eax,ecx.

I think that most people write xor reg, reg, to clear reg, not because the boolean operation is transparent, but because of habit, and SPEED of writing code. I am disinterested in code. I like PROGRAMMING, i.e. NOT writing quickly, but rather, first defining the variables, after having elaborated the algorithm, then the control logic. I always liked the expression:

The hurrieder I run, the behinder I get.

Debugging a program, and its sister, modifying a program, represent someone else's problem, in the minds of many FASM forumers. In my mind, readability is paramount, both for debugging, and especially, for future program modifiability.

The code on FASM forum frequently goes a step beyond this simple outline. Many FASM forumers go out of their way to deliberately write obscure code, and readability is anathematic to them. For example, some adolescent types put little insults into their text, in very small fonts, so as to be nearly invisible.

There are also many confused FASM forumers who mistakenly imagine that Assembly language is supposed to be difficult to understand, and read, and accordingly urge those of us, i.e. me, who assert the importance of readability, to employ some other language. They would prefer to write xor reg, reg, even if there were some inherent architectural advantage to writing mov reg, zero, simply to lend credence to the hypothesis that they are "genuine", "authentic" assembly language programmers.

The most confused group of folks are those FASM forumers who assert the almighty importance of saving execution time, else, saving memory, by employing xor reg, reg, versus mov reg, zero. This utterly nonsensical notion may have had some validity for the wretched Intel architecture, thirty years ago. Times change. Some folks are stuck in the past. These days, there is no measureable speed advantage for one method or another in a task with a human operator. Two programs, otherwise identical, but one in which all register clearing is done by xor, and the other by mov, will appear indistinguishable to the human. Memory is free.

Azu wrote:
If you don't like the way it looks, just make a macro so that you can write mov reg,0 and it compiles to xor reg,reg.. best of both worlds!

I feel very sorry for you, Azu. XOR reg,reg is not a problem of esthetics.

Your "solution" is nonsensical, because now you have introduced another potential source of error. Far from having the "best of both worlds", you have created a nightmare for debugging.
But, more importantly, at least from my perspective, you have demonstrated, with this comment, that you really do not comprehend the fundamental point:

xor reg,reg NO LONGER offers a measureable speed advantage in clearing a register.

Yes, you are correct, that in 1979, xor reg,reg was measureably faster than mov reg, zero. It is no longer 1979. It is UNNECESSARY to write a macro to change mov reg,zero to xor reg reg. One does not require xor reg,reg in order to have a program execute optimally.

I do not "hate" xor reg,reg, nor the people who write such silly nonsense.

I do dislike, very much, expensive software that is unreadable, hence difficult to modify, thus requiring one to continue to employ the creator of the software, in order to make changes, over time.

The main advantage of cryptic code versus readable program is economic, and FASM forumers, unfortunately, learn these practices from the forum's luminaries, and then concoct theories to justify their conduct. A typical illustration of this is found with the infernal @@ symbol.

Why is @@@@ employed in nearly every FASM snippet of code? Half of those using @@@ are dyslexic. The remainder think, or at least thought, that having lots of undefined symbols and unreadable code gives their chunk of creativity a special nuance, a particular rung in the ladder of professionalism. According to this demented way of thinking, a "program" which is opaque must be the real McCoy.

I don't have any hair left, so I can't pull any more out, every time I encounter @@@@ or xor.

Smile
Why not just modify your debugger to print all instances of "xor reg1,reg2" where reg1=reg2 as "zero reg1", then? This way the meaning is still very clear and human readable, and the size/speed advantages, however small they may or may not be, are still there.

This way is also better then my first suggestion of the mov macro, since you will be able to differentiate xor reg,reg and mov,0 if the need arises (probably only important for self modifying code though, which judging from your post you aren't the type to have interest in)..



I believe in having code that is both optimal for the human AND the computer. Smile
Bitwise pun intended. Sorry, you DID ask for this, though :Þ
Post 08 Jun 2009, 11:37
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
tom tobias wrote:
xor reg,reg NO LONGER offers a measureable speed advantage in clearing a register.
Oh, tom tobias, this was proven wrong to you some time back. It is not good manners to present this false information as a fact.
Post 08 Jun 2009, 11:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
Reference?
Post 09 Jun 2009, 23:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
tom tobias wrote:
Reference?
You ask for that everytime. Which is also ridiculous because mov eax, 0 is bigger in size which affects performance (and cache). More stuff to read for an instruction equals slower speed in most cases. Also xor x, x is optimized in CPUs. It's 4:30 AM though so sorry that I won't bother to google or look through my archives for references.

But you also deny that neurons might communicate with sound (which some research data suggests because of the low heat involved in a full 3D volume structure like the brain), and can't comprehend how energy cannot be created nor destroyed???

I think I realize why. It's because people use the words "create" energy when they actually transfer it, it's because people use the word "used up" for the same reasons. It's because english language is not logic and is a weak argument for people who use logic to program, not english. Same reason "mov eax, 0" seems better for you, because of the damn thing you think in: english.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 10 Jun 2009, 01:29
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
english language is not logic and is a weak argument for people who use logic to program, not english.
Ya I hate it to. It's the most popular one so we're kind of stuck with it though (like windows).


So much stuff is wrong with it, pointless to even make a list. Sad
Post 10 Jun 2009, 06:05
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=6339

http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=4916&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40

Here, Loco is quoting from Agner Fog, also much beloved by Mathis:

Agner Fog wrote:
The PPro, PII and PIII processors make a special case out of this combination to avoid a partial register stall when later reading from EAX. The trick is that a register is tagged as empty when it is XOR'ed with itself. The processor remembers that the upper 24 bits of EAX are zero, so that a partial stall can be avoided.

Is this the reference? Are we talking about Pentium Pro? PII? PIII?
Oh, the architecture is identical to the 64 bit dual core cpu in today's machines?
That's a question. I don't have the answer. Maybe it is unchanged?

Does XOR in modern cpus still change flags, as it did back in the old days???

If so, that feature alone would be sufficient to warrant its exclusion in writing a program, as opposed to generating cryptic code that one hopes is undecipherable, save for genuine Boolean operations.

It was fun rereading revolution's comments about rax!
Smile
Post 10 Jun 2009, 12:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
tom tobias wrote:
as opposed to generating cryptic code that one hopes is undecipherable
???
What is cryptic about "zero eax"?
Post 10 Jun 2009, 12:37
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
tom tobias: Read some of my comments about the cache usage from the link.

https://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=91857#91857

Perhaps you missed it. But it certainly pertains to how an instruction like xor reg,reg can help to keep our critical loops within the cache to keep the system running smoothly and quickly and at the same time use less energy to complete the same workload.
Post 10 Jun 2009, 12:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
Maybe I've said this already but well, here I go again:

I cannot see "mov reg, 0" as a "clearing" operation, I see it more like "ASSIGNING to reg the constant 0", then I need an extra thinking to realize that the state of the bits will be the same as "xor reg, reg". I wouldn't accept "sub reg, reg" neither, it is an arithmetic operation and as far as I know, the concept of clearing in arithmetics doesn't exists.

I'm not a native English speaker and I don't have good skills to speak English neither but still, I don't think that "mov reg, 0" can be considered clearing. XOR, on the other hand, operates at bit level and hence we know that it will clear the register because the operator clears any bit set when the corresponding one of the second operand has the same state. I would support "and reg, 0" to be described as clearing (not completely though, it still requires to know that the mask will clear all bits), but I prefer xor because of the micro-architectural aspects and because it is actually more transparent (if the number representation is biased, i.e., 0 is not represented with all the bits cleared, then MOV and AND would not clear the register).

Note about this post: What I've said above is concerning about the interpretation of "clearing", so I'm not meaning that xoring a register and later accumulating a sum in a loop would be considered as invalid due to the fact that we may not know if "mov reg1, 0/xor reg2, reg2" will give reg1==reg2 (because in x86 Assembly we know the target processor, an x86, and that is well defined in the specs).
Post 10 Jun 2009, 16:20
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
revolution wrote:
it certainly pertains to how an instruction like xor reg,reg can help to keep our critical loops within the cache to keep the system running smoothly and quickly and at the same time use less energy to complete the same workload.

LocoDelAssembly wrote:
I cannot see "mov reg, 0" as a "clearing" operation, I see it more like "ASSIGNING to reg the constant 0", then I need an extra thinking to realize that the state of the bits will be the same as "xor reg, reg".

Thank you both for your comments.
Here is another quote, from my old copy of a very obsolete Intel486 Microprocessor Family Programmer's Reference Manual, page 26-287, describing XOR:
Quote:
Flags Affected: The CF and OF flags are cleared; the SF, ZF, and PF flags are set according to the result; ...

Page 26-211, describing MOV:
Quote:
Flags Affected: none

Programming: no hidden operations, everything is transparent.
Coding: everything concealed, as much as possible.

Cache versus non-cache: not a persuasive argument. Simply purchase a faster cpu, if execution speed is important. I simply overclock. Yesterday's code runs 10,000 times faster in the most recent cpu. What, cache was an important criterion in 1980??? 1990???? 2000??? The issue here is NOT cache versus non-cache--This is a false argument.

A much better argument, if it were true, and it is not, would be that one saves a lot more time with XOR, compared with MOV, because one need not add the additional instructions required to change the flags, if one employs XOR. The problem, folks, is not SAVING TIME, it is CLARITY OF ALGORITHM, or more precisely, absence thereof.

If execution speed is faster with xor than mov, and I still am waiting for a REFERENCE, from Intel literature, documenting this supposed fact, then, one MUST demonstrate HOW the slower execution speed for a particular program PREVENTS its function within the specification parameters, when employing MOV, rather than XOR.

Show me the test results from a meaningful program, implemented in two versions: one with XOR, one with MOV, whereby the program's execution FAILS, due to slow speed, with MOV, but functions correctly, due to faster speed, with XOR......No one on this forum can produce such data, for it does not exist. No one here can do this, because it isn't the case that XOR is perceptably faster than MOV, to a human operator.

The literature demanding use of XOR dates from 30 years ago, and cpu execution speed today renders those arguments, moot.

The issue here is debugging, (or its twin sister, modifying a program decades later), which requires readability of the source code, not of the individual instruction, but of the algorithm. Most code, especially from this forum, including FASM itself, is either undocumented, or poorly documented, generally, deliberately, to PREVENT people from understanding what one seeks to accomplish.

We don't need a comment which says:

xor, reg,reg ; clear the register

(and, hehehe, also change the flags!!! hahaha. good luck trying to figure out what we are doing, you jerk.)

We need a PROGRAM, in which the opcodes are simple manifestations of the algorithm, without any hidden operations, such as changing flags, without explanation.

end of story.
Rolling Eyes
Post 10 Jun 2009, 21:12
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
tom tobias wrote:
Simply purchase a faster cpu, if execution speed is important.
LaughingLaughingLaughing

is that what you always do? You ask for references and when you are proven wrong, you resort to that?

Why ask for references then? Your (stupid) statement can be used REGARDLESS of what the reference says, even if it says it's 500 times faster, hypothetically... you can still use that remark.

How about this:

Borsuc wrote:
Simply optimize your code, if execution speed is important.


ahh, much better would be:

Borsuc wrote:
Simply optimize your code, if you are using assembly.


Gosh I really hope your idea would never get widespread because it would give HLL programmers another argument against assembly: HLL code is faster, after all, compilers USE xor reg, reg (yeah guess what even Intel, the CPU designers, in their compiler use it, guess they're smarter than you huh?).

Therefore HLL code would be better than your crappy asm code. Faster and more readable.

What is the point of asm then? What the hell do you try to do, degrade asm so HLL users can give out the final argument against it -- degrade asm even in what is its best argument against HLLs?

Get REAL.

And I seriously hope you don't ignore this post -- you're free to not reply. But I'm getting sick of your debates against xor reg, reg.

Can I ask you a STRAIGHT question that you can answer FOR GODDAMN ONCE?
Why the hell don't you use HLLs if readability is so important to you?

Try C, I promise it's much more readable than asm for people like you especially, and it's faster because the compiler is adding simple optimizations which you are too lazy to do, like xor reg, reg.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 11 Jun 2009, 00:04
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

< 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 can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.