Also note that CMOVcc r32, r32 in 64bit mode clears upper 32 bits of destination operand even if condition is false ;)

What?

  and r64Dest, $ffffffff ; Done internally
  cmovcc r32Dest, {r32Src|m32Src}    

Quote:

While the CMOVxx instruction does get rid of branch prediction, it still imposes a dependency, so you should still try to do branchless solutions if you can.

I have a pentium 4, so i'm assuming that i can't use it anyway... Though i think people could benefit from more than just a mov that's like that.

macro cmovne op1, op2 {
je @f
mov op1, op2
@@:
}    

macro cmovne op1, op2 {
local condition_was_not_met
je condition_was_not_met
mov op1, op2
condition_was_not_met:
}    

Quote:

The spell checker of firefox2 works pretty well and isn't too bad.

Last time i tried firefox, it didn't work for some unknown reson. Firewall wasn't blocking it, but for some reson it didn't work. Anyone have a stand alone solution?

Quote:

They need to use local labels... local labels are perfectly fine, and you'd be an idiot not to use them.

I personally don't bother with local lables, but then again, i've never had trouble with not having enough names either.

What didn't work, exactly? Take care that you need to configure it explicitly if you use a proxy or something like that...

Local labels are an useful feature, but it isn't an absolute solution for every naming problem...

You can avoid your problems for long and long, but it won't necessarily correct them...

Quote:

What?

Code:

 and r64Dest, $ffffffff ; Done internally
cmovcc r32Dest, {r32Src|m32Src}    

Quote:

What didn't work, exactly? Take care that you need to configure it explicitly if you use a proxy or something like that...

Didn't work as in the thing didn't even attempt to connect to a website.

Quote:

Local labels are an useful feature, but it isn't an absolute solution for every naming problem...

You still haven't explained why.

Quote:

You can avoid your problems for long and long, but it won't necessarily correct them...

Elaborate.

What about... error messages...

I haven't explained why, because it's obvious!
If you look at the nature of local labels, you will understand the problem.
It's simple. Using local labels, you manage to have your symbols split in namespaces, so that you can have more than one symbol with the same name, as long as they are in different namespaces. But if you want to define more than one symbol with the same name in the same namespace, you'll still have problems.

I cannot elaborate much more and still avoid to go into examples. That's just that: you can always rearrange the way you do things in order to avoid problematic conditions. But there are still many ways to run into this conditions.

In this case, splitting the labels among namespaces is a way to avoid your problem (because it's much less likely to find two similar names in a single function than in an entire program), but it's still possible that the namespace problems hadn't completely vanished.

kohlrak wrote:

Quote:

Sometimes we need to alternately test for a different set of characters, and this can complicate things...

You can always set the base to the base of the string.

Correct if I'm wrong, but I think it was YOU who told that jumps flush the prefetch queue!...

   xor eax, eax
   mov ecx, 6
@@:
   add eax, ecx
   dec ecx
   jnz @b    

xor eax, eax
add eax, 6
add eax, 5
add eax, 4
add eax, 3
add eax, 2
add eax, 1    

( (N)*(N+1) )/ 2 = N + N-1 + N-1 ... N-(N-1) 
;//static __________//generic 
MOV eac,6 ;______ MOV ecx,[var] ;;=(n) 
MOV eax,7 ;______ LEA eax,[eax+1] ;;=(n+1) 
MUL ecx ;______ MUL ecx ;;(n)(n+1) 
SHR eax,1 ;______ SHR eax,1 ;;DIVIDE BY 2 
    

I found it funny that no one even touched my idea about making JavaScript the standard MACRO language for compilers

BUT this has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread.

mov eax, 6+5+4+3+2+1    

haha, I was going to post the same thing but the first "xor eax, eax" unmotivated me because the source could be simplified into "mov eax, 6*(6+1)/2" which doesn't seems to be an unrolling anymore :P

About JavaScript (first known as LiveScript)

, is not standard enough, there are slight variations between browsers.

Still, you are always welcomed to write a guide of how to use JavaScript with fasm ;)

kohlrak, I just assumed he picked something simple just to represent an algorithm, more of an unrealistic example just for the sake of representation.

I don't use any of @ because I don't how to use them ;) is there any tutorial how tu use and undetstand them ?

Quote:

BUT this has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread.

Exactly, which makes me wonder why he keeps bringing it up. It's not like using annonymous lables unravles loops. But if he really wanted to simplify his algorithem to specifically go from 6 to 1 and add them together (rather than starting from a random number), he can easily do the following.

Code:

mov eax, 6+5+4+3+2+1    

Or he could do the math himself then put it in. The assembler dosn't mind it so much.

BUT this has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread. Which is (in case you've forgotten :D) anonymous labeling is USELESS

except to those who a) write sloppy code

b) don't take the time to think about or research the algorithm they are using

c) refuse to use the simplest of macros (for say: repeated ELSE IF blocks) because making their code clear and standardized would be a burdon to them.

And even firstly known as ECMA Script, after the institution that standardized it.

Quote:

And even firstly known as ECMA Script, after the institution that standardized it.

First or latter? And according to Wikipedia it was first known as Mocha (name that didn't appear in the book I read). The creators of this scripting language was the guys at Netscape (this appeared in the book as well).

And about standarization apparently the browsers are not aware of it because you still need sometimes to use special code to make possible the script to run correctly with all browsers. Anyway, r22 already explained the parts that are really needed and those AFAIK behaves the same on all browsers.

About unrolling, I think you should tell that to r22. The quoting you did from me already says "which doesn't seems to be an unrolling anymore".