Atmel AVR assembler
in [ASM]
|
Next: int 10h AX = 4F00h
From: CBFalconer on 26 Jul 2005 06:43 Betov wrote: > William Meyer <wmeyer(a)sbcglobal.net> ýcrivait news: > >> If you've nothing of substance to contribute to the ongoing debate on >> what constitutes a "real" implementation of an X86 assembly language >> tool, I'm sure I am not alone in hoping you will merely observe. > > If someone can translate this strange sentence in english... Your inability to parse a perfectly clear English sentence is not our responsibility. However, Mr. Meyers hopes have apparently not been met. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer(a)yahoo.com) (cbfalconer(a)worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
From: Robert Redelmeier on 26 Jul 2005 10:59 In alt.lang.asm Betov <betov(a)free.fr> wrote: > William Meyer <wmeyer(a)sbcglobal.net> ?crivait > >> If you've nothing of substance to contribute to the ongoing debate on >> what constitutes a "real" implementation of an X86 assembly language >> tool, I'm sure I am not alone in hoping you will merely observe. > > If someone can translate this strange sentence in english... > > Thanks in advance. > > > Betov. The sentence is in perfectly good english. Maybe a little long and complex. When in difficulty, you might find http://bablefish.altavista.com a useful tool. It rendered: : Si vous n'avez rien ý de la substance contribuer ý la : discussion continue sur ce qui constitue une "vraie" exýcution : d'un outil de langage de l'assemblage X86, je suis sýr que : je ne suis pas seul en vous espýrant observerai simplement. A few mistakes, but not all that bad French. To be more clear, the last line could have said: "je ne suis pas seul en esperant que vous observeriez simplement" -- Robert >
From: Paul Marciano on 26 Jul 2005 13:14 ¬a\/b wrote: > On 25 Jul 2005 13:52:34 -0700, "Paul Marciano" <pm940(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > >I've written ten of thousands of lines of 68K assembler in my time. I > >think it's a very easy to use instruction set format. > > so what have you written? "ten of thousands of lines of 68K assembler" > of what? An operative system or other? Hey, thanks for the interest. I grew up on home computers - my first exposure to the 68K was the Atari ST, on which I wrote non-commercial games. No money for a C compiler so it was all in assembly. Over the course of a few years that was easily my first 10,000 lines of code for graphics, sprite engines, interrupt-based screen effects, sound programming, low level access to the floppy disk controller, DMA, and of course higher level game logic. Professionally I worked on VME based networking devices, mostly in 'C' but also boot code, exception handlers, crash dumps. Worked at that level on a number of projects. Tens of thousands of lines over the course of 8 or 9 years. Big fun. Even though I almost exclusively work in 'C' above the operating system nowadays, I never pass up an opportunity to get down and dirty with microcontrollers or assembly language. Yes, I'm a geek. Cheers, Paul.
From: CBFalconer on 26 Jul 2005 13:36 Betov wrote: > CBFalconer <cbfalconer(a)yahoo.com> ýcrivait >> Betov wrote: >>> William Meyer <wmeyer(a)sbcglobal.net> ýcrivait news: >>> >>>> If you've nothing of substance to contribute to the ongoing debate on >>>> what constitutes a "real" implementation of an X86 assembly language >>>> tool, I'm sure I am not alone in hoping you will merely observe. >>> >>> If someone can translate this strange sentence in english... >> >> Your inability to parse a perfectly clear English sentence is not >> our responsibility. However, Mr. Meyers hopes have apparently not >> been met. > > Sorry, but the above sentence members do not make any sense > to me: > .... snip 70 odd lines of raving ... PLONK -- Chuck F (cbfalconer(a)yahoo.com) (cbfalconer(a)worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
From: Dave Hansen on 1 Aug 2005 14:34
On 24 Jul 2005 12:37:05 GMT, Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker(a)physik.rwth-aachen.de> wrote: >In comp.arch.embedded wolfgang kern <nowhere(a)nevernet.at> wrote: [...] >> That's new to me, AT&T/gas/gcc/.. use Intel/AMD recommeded style? > >No. But I'm willing to forgive AT&T (and GNU, which borrowed their >syntax) this violation of a well-founded principle, on the grounds >that Intel's original x86 assembly language is so incredibly horrible. I might be able to extend the same forgiveness, were it not for the fact that AT&T/gas is so much _worse_. FWIW, back when I did a lot of x86 assembler, I used TASM's IDEAL mode for any code I wrote, and its MASM emulation mode (sans QUIRKS) for assembling third-party code (if it had needed QUIRKS, I probably would have re-written it). I used Metaware High-C for C code, and avoided gas/gcc altogether. Regards, -=Dave -- Change is inevitable, progress is not. |