Re: i disagree

On 24 Jan 2007 14:29:01 +0200, Phil Carmody
<thefatphil_demunged@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"KiLVaiDeN" <kilvaiden@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Jan 23, 10:27 pm, "randyh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <randyh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
¬a\/b wrote:
for example "<a,b,c;" is pure assembly 1-1 cpuYou have a funny definition of '1' on the left hand side of 1:1.
I see one statement in your language, not three.
I see three machine instructions generated.

<a,b,c;

This looks to me like 3 different instructions.
The same syntax exists in C, with :

int a,b,c;

Which can be declined on :
int a;
int b;
int c;

Therefore, it looks like 3 different statements to me, matching 1-1.

What bit of 1-to-1 do you idiots not understand?


we are all "idiot" you particulary

Here's a quiz - to see if you can find out which one thing my one
sample bit of output came from:

Output:
push eax
push ebx
push ecx

Was the input:
1) <a,b,c;

2) <a,b;
<c;

3) <a;
<b,c;

4) <a;
<b;
<c;

(Not that I know what the freaking syntax of that line noise is.)

Come on - if it's a one-to-one mapping reverse it.

Or retract your bullshit claim and then shut up.

Phil
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: i disagree
    ... I see three machine instructions generated. ... The same syntax exists in C, ... int a,b,c; ... push eax ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: i disagree
    ... I see three machine instructions generated. ... The same syntax exists in C, ... int a,b,c; ... push eax ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: i disagree
    ... I see one statement in your language, ... I see three machine instructions generated. ... The same syntax exists in C, ... int a,b,c; ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Two Click disassembly/reassembly
    ... mov(99, ecx); ... push D$ecx*4+Data04005190 ... lea eax D$Data040021B0 ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • [PATCH] trivial: fix typos concerning "address"
    ... struct io7 *io7; ... + * Hook the return address and push it in the stack of return address ... unsigned int flags; ...
    (Linux-Kernel)