Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/05/21/01:17:27
>>Tell me the link to read. They say nothing. Have you even used the
inline
>>assembler before? Judging by your flawed thinking patterns, I think
>>have you have failed to do as such.
>
>WTF does "I have you fail to do as such" mean? And there you were,
>talking about "flawed thinking patterns"... <derisive snorts of
laughter>
It means your brain cannot synapse logic, lorenzo.
>>The inline implementation is nothing short of attrocious.
>
>That sounds like typical whining from an incompetent fuckwit ... oops
...
>I forgot ... it IS typical whining from an incompetent fuckwit.
Your unwarranted assumption has been noted, and rejected.
Begone, imbecile!
>>a) You can't understand it
>
>No, it's just that YOU can't understand it; IMO, AT&T syntax is a lot
>better than Intel syntax and the gcc extensions to inline ASM are very
>flexible (in the hands of an adept, they can become quite powerful).
Well we can't all be c00l MaSt3R HackEr5 like you, can we?
Shoo.
>>b) you can't write fluently in it
>
>You can't write fluently in any language (especially English, it would
>seem), so I don't know why you're whining about another's lack of
"fluency".
Are you normally this stupid, or does your brain just live inconsistently
with reality? I'll refrain from commenting on that, however, djgpp's
intel asm is definatly not a fluent implemention of assembly. It is
attrocious, and obsolete.
>>c) it's extremely non-portable
>I don't know if you realise this, moron, but ASM is generally not
>portable between architectures/platforms.
Incompetent fool. Watcom inline asm is can be easily ported to msvc, or
otherwise. DJGPP fails in this aspect. Get your facts straight before you
talk to me.
>>d) it would be easier to add intel asm support
>
>Get NASM, you useless gimp, and stop whining about it.
How does NASM help inline assembly? Your knowledge is flawed at best,
stop wasting my time with your little flame, disease.
>>How could any of that be "advanced" about that - oh - it can optimise
>>inline assembly. That's just great. If i wanted the compiler to do
that
>>then i'd just write in plain C code.
>
>Do that, then, you pompous ass ... and stop whining just because we
won't
>cater to your incompetence.
Translation: I know nothing so i'll flame instead because I am that boy
that nobody likes.
- Raw text -