Re: Long long int

From: August Derleth (see_at_sig.now)
Date: 02/16/04 

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 03:15:45 -0700

RagnarDanneskjöld wrote:

> Tom St Denis wrote:
>
>> "RagnarDanneskjöld" <noemail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ERUXb.11093$cE3.18040018@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>>
>>> Well I have absolutely no idea what this odd-ball assembly code is doing
>>> so let's look at how a "real" compiler does it.
>>
>>
>>
>> You put that code in main where gcc imposes some limitations try
>>
>
> Damn why didn't I think to generate with a non-main function.
>
> When I said I had no idea what the heck it was doing: i was referring
> more to the syntax of GAS or AT&T or whatever assembly. It's zany.

It's ugly as hell, and it's called AT&T. Try using the -masm=intel
argument. That won't make it as clean as, say, nasm's assembly, but it
will make it readable to someone coming from an Intel background.

AT&T's assembly is supposedly ugly to be usable as-is on multiple
architectures. Supposedly, you can use AT&T syntax as a template for a
very generic (non-processor-specific) assembly language, filling in the
opcodes and their exact arguments as the compiler generates them.

Of course, that doesn't wash with me. First off, I doubt the benefits of
  trying to shoehorn Intel assembly into something that worked for VAX
assembly, or PowerPC assembly into something that worked for System/360
assembly. Code reuse is good, but that is simple absurdity.

Secondly, trained monkeys could have come up with a better template.
Memory references are particularly FUBARed: What does -3(%eax,%edx,4)
mean? Looking it up, I find it means [eax+edx*4-3]. I chose a rather
absurd example, but it isn't that odd to use rather complex addressing
schemes in a chip as register-starved as an x86 clone. And Intel's
algebraic notation is clearly a win over AT&T's What-The-*** notation. 

-- 
My address is yvoregnevna gjragl-guerr gjb-gubhfnaq guerr ng lnubb qbg pbz
Note: Rot13 and convert spelled-out numbers to numerical equivalents.