Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/05/15/21:45:40
you AT somehost DOT somedomain (Herman Schoenfeld) writes:
>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 fail 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>
>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.
>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).
>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".
>c) it's extremely non-portable
I don't know if you realise this, moron, but ASM is generally not
portable between architectures/platforms.
>d) it would be easier to add intel asm support
Get NASM, you useless gimp, and stop whining about it.
>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.
- Raw text -