Prev: ugly?
Next: comment on my, code, Im little bit rusty , another bugcorrected, used SSE2 (somewhat)
From: Karel Lejska on 16 Mar 2010 13:37
On Mar 15, 9:09 pm, "io_x" <a...(a)b.c.invalid> wrote:
> Do you know this could be RosAsm code?
> Is it ugly?

Looks like an output of a fake code generator. Awesome maze.
From: wolfgang kern on 17 Mar 2010 05:56

Rosario posted:

> Do you know this could be RosAsm code?

I'm afraid Rene(Betov) wont agree ... :)

> Is it ugly?

[source snipped]

Oh yes, it's almost unreadable and it makes my eyes blur,
it would take me much lesser time to translate a
Hebrew script into Anchient Egypt even I don't know both,
than trying to see the meaning in your personal language.

If it makes you happy then use this for your own code.
I also once had and particular still have my very own
mnemonics in my tools, but I rare posted this style
because noone else beside me would see what it means.
__
wolfgang


From: Branimir Maksimovic on 17 Mar 2010 07:57
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:09:08 +0100
"io_x" <a(a)b.c.invalid> wrote:

> Do you know this could be RosAsm code?
> Is it ugly?
>
Doesn;t look like assembler.

Greets!

> ; u32
> ; StampaVersoArr( u8* Arro, u32 ArroSize,
> ; u8* FileIn, u32 Cap, u32 verso, u32 nVersi)
> ; 0k, 4j, 8i, 12b, 16ra,



--
http://maxa.homedns.org/

Sometimes online sometimes not


From: Rod Pemberton on 17 Mar 2010 16:31
"Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a984d0d-24e4-4fb4-b5cd-a45bcb02d057(a)q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 16, 12:30 pm, "io_x" <a...(a)b.c.invalid> wrote:
>
> > [io_x (etc.) custom assembly]
>
> I don't know what this
> is written in.
>

Alex, you must be real busy... He's been posting his own assembly to a.l.a.
for a few years now (07? 06?...) and was previously posting to comp.lang.c,
and etc.

IIRC, he once stated that his syntax or symbology mapped 1:1 or almost so to
assembly. This is one of the first in a while where he hasn't posted
equivalent x86 assembly. IIRC, he posted some versions with equivalent C
too. The most recent was his 3/7/10 post "overflow of stack for recursive
functions". x86 at the top. io_x assembly at the bottom. I've mentioned
numerous times that I can't read it.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.lang.asm/msg/6255113f72d5bd74?hl=en


Rod Pemberton


From: Alexei A. Frounze on 18 Mar 2010 03:27
On Mar 17, 1:31 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)havenone.cmm> wrote:
> "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrun...(a)gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1a984d0d-24e4-4fb4-b5cd-a45bcb02d057(a)q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 16, 12:30 pm, "io_x" <a...(a)b.c.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > [io_x (etc.) custom assembly]
>
> > I don't know what this
> > is written in.
>
> Alex, you must be real busy...  He's been posting his own assembly to a..l.a.
> for a few years now (07? 06?...) and was previously posting to comp.lang.c,
> and etc.
>
> IIRC, he once stated that his syntax or symbology mapped 1:1 or almost so to
> assembly.  This is one of the first in a while where he hasn't posted
> equivalent x86 assembly.  IIRC, he posted some versions with equivalent C
> too.  The most recent was his 3/7/10 post "overflow of stack for recursive
> functions".  x86 at the top.  io_x assembly at the bottom.  I've mentioned
> numerous times that I can't read it.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.lang.asm/msg/6255113f72d5bd74?hl=en
>
> Rod Pemberton

I never bothered to learn this "new" facade around the x86 asm or its
syntax or whatever that is.
I don't remember if he'd asked on the style (ugliness) before, so I
gave my view of the presented code.

Alex
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: ugly?
Next: comment on my, code, Im little bit rusty , another bugcorrected, used SSE2 (somewhat)