From: wanpsm98 AT octarine DOT cc DOT adfa DOT oz DOT au (WANKADIA PAUL SAPAL MICHAEL) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Inline assembly in djgpp Date: 16 May 98 01:32:16 GMT Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: <6jeij9$2dm$1 AT grissom DOT powerup DOT com DOT au> <355C064A DOT 3BCB AT rug DOT ac DOT be> <6jikj4$ohh$1 AT grissom DOT powerup DOT com DOT au> NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.236.253.20 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk 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"... >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.