Linux X demo
in [ASM]
|
Prev: masm linking from console
Next: NASM HelloWorld - DOS
From: santosh on 20 Jul 2007 06:18 Rod Pemberton wrote: > Rod Pemberton wrote: >> Frank Kotler wrote: >> > >> > I'll have more to say about Herbert's example. My usual M.O. >> > is to disassemble his executable into Nasmese, and work from >> > there. This gives *ugly* results. This example is so >> > beautifully formatted and commented that it deserves better >> > than that! A "hand translation" will be tedious, but I think >> > it may be worth it. Not immediately. Herbert speaks a >> > strange language, but he does beautiful work! > > Earlier HK stated: > >> Most of the code is stolen from Frank >> (hope he doesn't mind, at least now he gets the code back >> in a readably assembler syntax). > > Sorry, missed the self congratulatory remark, Frank! It > appears that it's your code... :-) And it has suffered a curious circular fate. From NASM to "HerbertSyntax", and now back again to NASM.
From: Wolfgang Kern on 20 Jul 2007 06:23 "Rod Pemberton" recognised: .... >>> but I think it may be worth it. Not immediately. Herbert speaks a >>> strange language, but he does beautiful work! > Earlier HK stated: >> Most of the code is stolen from Frank >> (hope he doesn't mind, at least now he gets the code back >> in a readably assembler syntax). > Sorry, missed the self congratulatory remark, Frank! > It appears that it's your code... :-) Funny things can hapen in our ASM-babel-realm :) __ wolfgang
From: Phil Carmody on 20 Jul 2007 08:05 Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> writes: > case 0x05: {la[--j] = la[j] / la[j+1]; break;} That's the line that c.l.c needs to see. It'll be feeding time at the zoo! Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Phil Carmody on 20 Jul 2007 08:14 santosh <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> writes: > > case 0x05: {la[--j] = la[j] / la[j+1]; break;} > > Why should this be an error? This exhibits undefined behaviour, but > that doesn't mean compilation should be stopped. > > > With this code, Windela shouldn't work properly when compiled > > with GCC on a SUN (but this was my first C program and you only > > learn by making errors). > > Why only on the SUN? This code should invoke undefined behaviour on > all implementations, since 'j' is modified more than once between > sequence points. Between the previous and next sequence point an object can only have its stored value modified once by the evaluation of an expression. Additionally, the prior value can be read only to determine the value to be stored. j is read 3 times in that expression, and modified. Classic UB. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: //o//annabee on 20 Jul 2007 08:17
P� Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:05:06 +0200, skrev Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk>: > Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> writes: >> case 0x05: {la[--j] = la[j] / la[j+1]; break;} > > That's the line that c.l.c needs to see. > It'll be feeding time at the zoo! > > Phil Agree, no human should dirty its mind going to the zoo at clc |