Re: Explanation of a swindling

"T.M. Sommers" <tms@xxxxxx> écrivait news:454ea361$0$4970
$470ef3ce@xxxxxxxxxxx:

Since Rene did not answer this question,

Excuse me, i can't answer to any and all stupidities around.


I thought I would
investigate to make sure that the problem Randy found still
existed. After downloading RosAsm and extracting it, and using
Randy's old program as a model, I created this awk script to
generate programs to test RosAsm:

BEGIN {
print "[call | push #L>2 | call #1]"
print "Main:\n"
for ( i = 1; i <= ARGV[1]; ++i )
printf("foobar%d:\n", i)
print "call 'Kernel32.ExitProcess' &NULL\n"
}

When invoked with a command-line argument (ARGV[1]) of 809, it
assembled; with 810 it did not assemble. I then changed the
script to add a nop after each label. This assembled with an
argument of 2000, but did not assemble with an argument of 5000.
I did not bother finding exactly how many symbols caused it to
stop assembling.

Normal. The Tables for the various Symbols types are evaluated
depending on the Source Size, and not on the maximum of possible
size that would be necessary if someone was wanting to compile
artificial tests.

When you Declare, say, an Equate, in a RosAsm Source, for
example:

[MyEquate 25]

.... this takes 15 char (counting the CRLF). When RosAsm
stores that in its Equates List, it stores:

* The Name.

* The Address (for the Errors Manager, and the like...).

* The Equate Value.

* Some other things like a "Done" flag...

... which is, at the end, bigger than your declaration.
The "fix" of this would be quite simple, as it would
simply require to extend a little bit the evaluation
for assuming such cases. But, there is no reason for
doing that, as long as nobody will ever need to write
any Source like this.

Add a couple of Assembly Instructions in your absurd
attempt, and it will eat it... then, you will be able
to "prove" anything you'd like to be the exact reverse
of facts, which was, exactly the intention of Randall
Hyde, wanting to "prove" than RosAsm was _slower_ than
MASM (???!!!...) because:

1) He had no real life Applications written with MASM
to compare against.

2) Because the only way to prove what one likes to prove
is to make on purpose biaized tests.

3) Because, as everybdy knows, even a slow Assembler
like MASM, can have partial computations that are
faster than others' one, and that all of the idiots
around would be utterly unable to understand this
"one another swindling". Needless to say, you
belong full rights to this very bunch of idiots,
as fully demonstrated, previously, on the "Win32
Equates List" so funny Topic.


Betov.

< http://rosasm.org >






.

Relevant Pages

  • ///Re: Explanation of a swindling
    ... but did not assemble with an argument of 5000. ... with such resembling names on a single source file. ... I don't think you understand the "_" issue in RosAsm, ... Rene uses a hashing function. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Release of RosAsm V.2.025a
    ... >> assemble RosAsm code if half of the file turned up missing. ... > This is simply impossible Troll: ... > The reverse is proven true by RosAsm Disassembler, ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: RosAsm is a broken pile of crap
    ... > assemble that within a RosAsm project in order to get rid of those ... Advanced programmers can't take the risk. ... > MASM does support multiple lines per instruction. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: HLA v2.x and / or LASM suggestion: Win32 Resources
    ... process in _seconds_ and then assembled it with MASM. ... Clearly the equates.equ file is processed specially by RosAsm. ... it requires special syntax to handle those equates and I wouldn't ... MASM *doesn't* require more than a few seconds to assemble most files. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: incremental assembly
    ... "incremental assembly" is that I can assemble a function and the ... Paging Beth Stone... ... Betov (author of RosAsm) replied, "Okay, Frank, you're the chief ... maintainer of Luxasm, ...
    (comp.lang.asm.x86)