• Chr. Grade (9/9) May 09 2004 What about also making possible to inline assemble this way:
• J C Calvarese (10/24) May 09 2004 Do you use a lot of one-line assembly blocks? Are the braces that much
• Chr. Grade (4/27) May 10 2004 Too much of a burden, indeed. I like the alternative GCC way.
• Unknown W. Brackets (20/23) May 11 2004 http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?puritanical
• John Reimer (3/15) May 11 2004 I think the idea he's getting across is "rigid" or "non-flexible."

"Chr. Grade" <tickle everymail.net> writes:

What about also making possible to inline assemble this way:

   asm rol foo, 3;
   asm < ... >
   asm < ... >

rather than only:

   asm {

     rol bar, 3;
     < ... >
   }

J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:

Chr. Grade wrote:
 
 What about also making possible to inline assemble this way:
 
   asm rol foo, 3;
   asm < ... >
   asm < ... >
 
 rather than only:
 
   asm {
 
     rol bar, 3;
     < ... >
   }

Do you use a lot of one-line assembly blocks?  Are the braces that much 
of a burden?

Try this:
    asm {rol foo, 3;}
    asm { ... }
    asm { ... }


-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

"Chr. Grade" <tickle everymail.net> writes:

Too much of a burden, indeed. I like the alternative GCC way.
asm {ror foo, 3;} is ugly, isn't it?
And code blocks, where every line begins with 'asm', look more puritanical.

J C Calvarese wrote:
 Do you use a lot of one-line assembly blocks?  Are the braces that much
 of a burden?

 Try this:
    asm {rol foo, 3;}
    asm { ... }
    asm { ... }

 Chr. Grade wrote:
 
 What about also making possible to inline assemble this way:

   asm rol foo, 3;
   asm < ... >
   asm < ... >

 rather than only:

   asm {

     rol bar, 3;
     < ... >
   }

 

"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown at.simplemachines.dot.org> writes:

Chr. Grade wrote:

 Too much of a burden, indeed. I like the alternative GCC way.
 asm {ror foo, 3;} is ugly, isn't it?
 And code blocks, where every line begins with 'asm', look more puritanical.

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?puritanical

I'm sorry, I just don't understand.

Anyhow, why is this a plus?  Example:

	if (true) annoying();
	if (true) annoying();
	if (true) annoying();
	if (true) annoying();

Versus:

	if (true)
	{
		notAsAnnoying();
		notAsAnnoying();
		notAsAnnoying();
		notAsAnnoying();
	}

It also makes code harder to type, harder to copy and paste, uglier 
imho, and... ermm... well, i just don't like it.  I like my assembly 
clean ;).

-[Unknown]

John Reimer <brk_6502 NOSP_AM.yahoo.com> writes:

Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
 Chr. Grade wrote:
 
 Too much of a burden, indeed. I like the alternative GCC way.
 asm {ror foo, 3;} is ugly, isn't it?
 And code blocks, where every line begins with 'asm', look more 
 puritanical.

 
 
 http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?puritanical
 
 I'm sorry, I just don't understand.
 

I think the idea he's getting across is "rigid" or "non-flexible." 
Perhaps this doesn't qualify as a moral issue, but I get his drift. :-)