order of operands in HLA
From: fabio de francesco (fmdf_at_tiscali.it)
Date: 08/20/04
- Next message: Percival: "Re: From the LuxAsm list."
- Previous message: beta : "Re: a common belief or a wrong C[++] compiler?"
- Next in thread: Betov: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Reply: Betov: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Reply: Randall Hyde: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Reply: The_Sage: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Reply: C: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Maybe reply: T.M. Sommers: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Maybe reply: Ed Beroset: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Maybe reply: Ed Beroset: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Maybe reply: The Wannabee: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Maybe reply: Ed Beroset: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Maybe reply: Kain: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Maybe reply: Ed Beroset: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Maybe reply: Alex McDonald: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Maybe reply: The_Sage: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 20 Aug 2004 08:08:32 -0700
Hello.
As I wrote in this NG some weeks ago, I have been recently started to
learn Assembly by reading AoA and exercising with HLA, and I am
enjoying myself with this powerful language.
However some days ago, I was reading some simple code written in NASM
not being able to understand what it would do. It took a while before
I found out that the order of operands was exactly the opposite
between HLA and NASM, for example "mov(src,dest);" is "mov dest,src".
Then I noticed that GAS uses the second form of syntax too. And If I
am right MASM does the same as the latters.
So, why does HLA use this counter intuitive syntax? Seen that HLA
claims to be easier for HLL programmers to become used to it, itself
should use a syntax that recalls either (Ada) "dest := src;" or
(C/C++) "dest = src;" with destination as a left operand. A different
example from the C library are the functions "memcpy(dest,src,size);"
and "memmove(dest,src,size);".
May be I'm missing something important that explains the design of the
language syntax. Please, does anyone know why this is the way it is?
Thank you all,
Fabio De Francesco.
- Next message: Percival: "Re: From the LuxAsm list."
- Previous message: beta : "Re: a common belief or a wrong C[++] compiler?"
- Next in thread: Betov: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Reply: Betov: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Reply: Randall Hyde: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Reply: The_Sage: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Reply: C: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Maybe reply: T.M. Sommers: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Maybe reply: Ed Beroset: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Maybe reply: Ed Beroset: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Maybe reply: The Wannabee: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Maybe reply: Ed Beroset: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Maybe reply: Kain: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Maybe reply: Ed Beroset: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Maybe reply: Alex McDonald: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Maybe reply: The_Sage: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|