MASM documentation
in [MFC]
|
Prev: using CList as a base class in an extension DLL
Next: Left/Right keys don't work in CDockablePane
From: Mihai N. on 14 Nov 2009 01:53 Hmm, I just dicovered that my trust-worthy masm 5.10 (and link 5.01) that I keep carying around does not work on Win 7 64 bit. I need to find a newer version. It's ok, it's only 20 years old (1988). It it would have been some Apple stuff I would have had to change it every 2 years :-) -- Mihai Nita [Microsoft MVP, Visual C++] http://www.mihai-nita.net ------------------------------------------ Replace _year_ with _ to get the real email
From: Giovanni Dicanio on 14 Nov 2009 07:30 "Geoff" <geoff(a)invalid.invalid> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3kjsf5pv7sdqhc6a15a0vii6vdcr50qdhk(a)4ax.com... > I dug around my bookshelves and finally came up with the MASM book I > got with my original Windows SDK. (the big blue and white box) > > Title: Microsoft Macro Assembler 5.1 Programmer's Guide > Copyright: 1987 So back in the days the Windows SDK was made not only by header files but also by paper-based documentation and books? Giovanni
From: Giovanni Dicanio on 14 Nov 2009 07:41 "Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer(a)flounder.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:mebsf590t5c7h1q5ugnnobdnb0024i8udj(a)4ax.com... > It is surprising how horribly bad the documentation is. > MASM doesn't support Unicode, and I even have a slide that points this > out; it has to be > > hello DB 'H', 00h, 'E', 00h, 'L', 00h, 'L', 00h, 'O', 00h, 00h, 00h > > I can see why companies are having problems finding people who can program > in assembler. > When you can't learn how something works, you won't use it. Probably when MASM was developed Unicode did not exist? (I've never used this MASM, I don't know. I just used Devpac Assembler for Motorola MC68000 on Commodore Amiga). > But now they're paying the price: people who need super-high-performance > and want to use > the fancy MMX/XMM/etc instructions can't figure out how to use them or > write them; I have no idea of the assembly of the new Intel CPUs, but I read somewhere that writing *hand-coded* optimized assembly code is hard these days (it's not like the age of 80286 or Motorola 68000), and optimizing C++ compilers do a better job than humans in producing optimized assembly code. >The number of us who used to earn our livings > writing huge systems in assembly code (250K lines) is dwindling... Wow... Writing 250K lines of assembly code must be a titanic work (leaving apart debugging...!). > I don't really believe in writing more that tiny subroutines in assembler, > but what I seem > to take for granted--how to write assembly code--is apparently becoming a > lost art. As is COM programming :) > I thought writing a course in using MASM would be easy. It probably would > be, if there > were any documentation. Right now, I have to run experiments. Have fun :) Giovanni
From: David Lowndes on 14 Nov 2009 07:56 >So back in the days the Windows SDK was made not only by header files but >also by paper-based documentation and books? Yep, a bookshelf full - something you could peruse in the reading room and discover some useful API that you weren't aware of :) Dave
From: BobF on 14 Nov 2009 08:30
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/manuals/index.htm http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/manual/253666.pdf http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/manual/253667.pdf Mihai N. wrote: >> name DWORD 30 DUP (1) > ... >> The syntax >> of an identifier is apparently a Microsoft Corporate Secret. > > I would not expect to find this in the masm documents. > > Isn't this part of the Intel assembly language spec? > > All the options, and . directives (like .486, .code, .model flat), > yes, that would be the assembler. > Same for tricks like @@: to automatically generate label names. > > > Anyway, you might have a point with the value of someone who > knows assembly. > With at bit of luck I might be able to land some well payed job > later one, something like the Y2K boom for the Cobol guys :-D > > |