Linux / Windows GUI application with assembly
in [ASM]
|
Prev: TMA Assembler?
Next: pshufb
From: ?a/b on 10 Nov 2006 10:03 On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 05:47:23 -0500, T.M. Sommers wrote: >?a\/b wrote: >> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:41:40 +0100, Herbert Kleebauer wrote: >>>Betov wrote: >>> >>>>Believing that C is a usable Language is way over my head: I can't >>>>believe it, but, so is it. >>> >>>That's nothing you have to believe. Try it and you will see it. >> >> i tried C language, but many functions are easier in pure assembly not >> in C; sscanf, printf, numerical conversion routines, many numerical >> functions etc are some of them > >That's just silly. Things like printf are trivial to use in C, >and just as trivial to call from assembler. On the other hand, >implementing them in assembler is definitely non-trivial. what i say is to write down printf function from read/write of the OS
From: ?a/b on 10 Nov 2006 10:30 On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:03:40 +0100, ?a\/b wrote: >>> i tried C language, but many functions are easier in pure assembly not >>> in C; sscanf, printf, numerical conversion routines, many numerical >>> functions etc are some of them >> >>That's just silly. Things like printf are trivial to use in C, >>and just as trivial to call from assembler. On the other hand, >>implementing them in assembler is definitely non-trivial. > >what i say is to write down printf function from read/write of the OS what i say is to write down sprintf, printf, sscanf etc function all in assembly is for me esier than write them with C language call them is == easy in assembly and in C language
From: ?a/b on 13 Nov 2006 01:06 On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:30:05 +0100, ?a\/b wrote: >On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:03:40 +0100, ?a\/b wrote: >>>> i tried C language, but many functions are easier in pure assembly not >>>> in C; sscanf, printf, numerical conversion routines, many numerical >>>> functions etc are some of them >>> >>>That's just silly. Things like printf are trivial to use in C, >>>and just as trivial to call from assembler. On the other hand, >>>implementing them in assembler is definitely non-trivial. >> >>what i say is to write down printf function from read/write of the OS > >what i say is to write down sprintf, printf, sscanf etc function all >in assembly is for me esier than write them with C language but my printf has someting less than that "standard C" >call them is == easy in assembly and in C language
From: T.M. Sommers on 13 Nov 2006 05:39 ¬a\/b wrote: > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:30:05 +0100, ¬a\/b wrote: >>On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:03:40 +0100, ¬a\/b wrote: >> >>>>>i tried C language, but many functions are easier in pure assembly not >>>>>in C; sscanf, printf, numerical conversion routines, many numerical >>>>>functions etc are some of them >>>> >>>>That's just silly. Things like printf are trivial to use in C, >>>>and just as trivial to call from assembler. On the other hand, >>>>implementing them in assembler is definitely non-trivial. >>> >>>what i say is to write down printf function from read/write of the OS >> >>what i say is to write down sprintf, printf, sscanf etc function all >>in assembly is for me esier than write them with C language > > but my printf has someting less than that "standard C" If it really is so much easier to do in assembler than in C, why haven't you fully implemented printf? -- Thomas M. Sommers -- tms(a)nj.net -- AB2SB
From: ?a/b on 13 Nov 2006 10:19
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 05:39:46 -0500, T.M. Sommers wrote: >?a\/b wrote: >> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:30:05 +0100, ?a\/b wrote: >>>On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:03:40 +0100, ?a\/b wrote: >>> >>>>>>i tried C language, but many functions are easier in pure assembly not >>>>>>in C; sscanf, printf, numerical conversion routines, many numerical >>>>>>functions etc are some of them >>>>> >>>>>That's just silly. Things like printf are trivial to use in C, >>>>>and just as trivial to call from assembler. On the other hand, >>>>>implementing them in assembler is definitely non-trivial. >>>> >>>>what i say is to write down printf function from read/write of the OS >>> >>>what i say is to write down sprintf, printf, sscanf etc function all >>>in assembly is for me esier than write them with C language >> >> but my printf has someting less than that "standard C" > >If it really is so much easier to do in assembler than in C, why >haven't you fully implemented printf? because that function will be too big and i can find some way for substitute them something like "%li %lu %hu %hi" l for long h for short (i have a "long int" == "int" and when i have a short it seems that compiler have to pass it like a "int &0xFFFF" so %i should be ok) don't know why "%n" is useful, and it seems i remember i add some code for doing what does [.] [^.] better |