From:	you AT somehost DOT somedomain (Herman Schoenfeld)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Inline assembly in djgpp
Date:	21 May 1998 00:48:38 GMT
Organization:	Your Organization
Lines:	72
Message-ID:	<6jvtl6$lmv$1@grissom.powerup.com.au>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980514112155 DOT 287L-100000 AT is> <6jeij9$2dm$1 AT grissom DOT powerup DOT com DOT au> <355C064A DOT 3BCB AT rug DOT ac DOT be> <6jikj4$ohh$1 AT grissom DOT powerup DOT com DOT au> <wanpsm98 DOT 895282336 AT octarine>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	ts3203.powerup.com.au
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

>>Tell me the link to read. They say nothing. Have you even used the 
inline 
>>assembler before? Judging by your flawed thinking patterns, I think 
>>have you have failed to do as such.
>
>WTF does "I have you fail to do as such" mean?  And there you were, 
>talking about "flawed thinking patterns"... <derisive snorts of 
laughter>

It means your brain cannot synapse logic, lorenzo. 

>>The inline implementation is nothing short of attrocious. 
>
>That sounds like typical whining from an incompetent fuckwit ... oops 
... 
>I forgot ... it IS typical whining from an incompetent fuckwit. 

Your unwarranted assumption has been noted, and rejected. 
Begone, imbecile!


 >>a) You can't understand it
 >
 >No, it's just that YOU can't understand it; IMO, AT&T syntax is a lot 
 >better than Intel syntax and the gcc extensions to inline ASM are very 
 >flexible (in the hands of an adept, they can become quite powerful).

Well we can't all be c00l MaSt3R HackEr5 like you, can we?
Shoo. 


 >>b) you can't write fluently in it
 >
 >You can't write fluently in any language (especially English, it would 
 >seem), so I don't know why you're whining about another's lack of 
 "fluency".

Are you normally this stupid, or does your brain just live inconsistently 
with reality? I'll refrain from commenting on that, however, djgpp's 
intel asm is definatly not a fluent implemention of assembly. It is 
attrocious, and obsolete. 

>>c) it's extremely non-portable

 >I don't know if you realise this, moron, but ASM is generally not 
 >portable between architectures/platforms.

Incompetent fool. Watcom inline asm is can be easily ported to msvc, or 
otherwise. DJGPP fails in this aspect. Get your facts straight before you 
talk to me.

 >>d) it would be easier to add intel asm support
 >
 >Get NASM, you useless gimp, and stop whining about it.

How does NASM help inline assembly? Your knowledge is flawed at best, 
stop wasting my time with your little flame, disease.

 >>How could any of that be "advanced" about that - oh - it can optimise 
 >>inline assembly. That's just great. If i wanted the compiler to do 
 that 
 >>then i'd just write in plain C code.
 >
 >Do that, then, you pompous ass ... and stop whining just because we 
 won't 
 >cater to your incompetence. 

Translation: I know nothing so i'll flame instead because I am that boy 
that nobody likes. 

- Raw text -