[MPlayer-dev-eng] cpuid vs 386 vs 486

[Arpi]

Hi,

> > > mov eax,[label]
> > > 
> > > Imho syntax of nasm is much cleaner than some strange nasm/tasm/whatever
> > > syntax.
> > 
> > cleaner????????
> > imho it's braindead, at least when you change from tasm to nasm...
> > i've even wrote a tasm->nasm source converter :)
> 
> But it's much more logical. Juest read the dox. Under tasm/masm if
> label is something constant mov eax,label will compile into mov eax,CONST,
> while if label is a memory location (eg label) it will compile as:
> mov eax,[LABEL], so nasm is much more logical.

it is not logical. it's just simpler, dummier.
tasm can check the type of label and the resulting code depends on that.
just like in c:

#define ize 12
x=ize;

or:

int ize=12;
x=ize;

I liked this *feature* of tasm, and used a lot. And it's missing from nasm.
Nasm has only a single type of label: offset. no size of labels, so while
tasm detected and printed warning about wrong label size (aka. cast type
mismatch in C) nasm compiles bad code.

tasm is a bit intelligent compared to very raw and strict nasm.

i like intelligent compilers... if i need just nasm-like, i may write HEX
numbers instead of asm.

do you remember BAPC3 ? It was built over tasm, and provided C-like
language.

A'rpi / Astral & ESP-team

--
"I don't RTFM? Wow. What's the meaning of this? It's new for me."
	-- Martin Baum, a tipical MPlayer user...