Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/05/21/07:15:55
you AT somehost DOT somedomain (Herman Schoenfeld) writes:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Have you figured out how to configure your newsreader, moron? Or maybe
you're just trying to ensure that someone doesn't attack the account
you've borrowed from your neighbour...
>>>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
>It means your brain cannot synapse logic, lorenzo.
No, it means that you shot yourself in the foot.
It's nice to see that you've still got your lame macros, BTW.
>>>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!
It was hardly an assumption, let alone "unwarranted" ... you WERE whining,
you ARE incompetent and you ARE a <fornicate>wit ...
> >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?
If you can't figure out how to use gcc's extended inline ASM, then you
haven't got a hope of doing anything as complex as what I'm doing...
>Shoo.
<yawn>
> >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
>Are you normally this stupid, or does your brain just live inconsistently
>with reality? I'll refrain from commenting on that, however, djgpp's
I'm not stupid at all, unless I'm trolling...
>intel asm is definatly not a fluent implemention of assembly. It is
>attrocious, and obsolete.
DJGPP doesn't actually support Intel-syntax ASM (unless you patch it to
do so); NASM is a separate package that is often associated with DJGPP;
in any case, if you can't adapt to AT&T-syntax ASM with little or no
trouble, then you're obviously moronic.
You misspelled "definitely" and "atrocious", BTW.
> >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
Do you know what an "architecture" is, numbskull? Watcom and Visual C
are not "architectures", no matter what your Mommy tells you.
>otherwise. DJGPP fails in this aspect. Get your facts straight before you
>talk to me.
Take your own advice, gimp; better still, RTFM or FOAD.
> >>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?
It doesn't, but you obviously wouldn't have a hope of learning how to
patch the gcc source ... you'd just have to go with using NASM to
assemble stand-alone ASM code.
>Your knowledge is flawed at best,
>stop wasting my time with your little flame, disease.
More macros... <yawn>
> >>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.
For someone who doesn't know how to use gcc's extended inline ASM, you
sure are rather cocky when you're talking to people who DO know how to
use gcc's extended inline ASM ... in their home newsgroup, at that ...
- Raw text -