Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "Herbert Kleebauer" <klee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > > > I'm not sure wheter this are the same sockets I used in a simple
> > > > X demo. But here is how I did it (using NASM):
> > >
> > > "using NASM"...?
> > >
> > > > ; ******************** get socket handle
> ***************************
> > > > moveq.l 0,-[sp] ; no protocol specified
> > > > moveq.l 1,-[sp] ; 1: SOCK_STREAM
(/usr/include/linux/net.h)
> > > ...
> > > > .10: rts.l
> > >
> > > Looks like HK asm to me... :)
> >
> > then it would be:
> >
> > moveq.l #0,-(sp) ; no protocol specified
> > moveq.l #1,-(sp) ; 1: SOCK_STREAM
(/usr/include/linux/net.h)
> > ...
> > _10: rts.l
> >
>
> Are there only the 3 changes from old style to new style?
What's old and what's new style. I was told, that people can't read
my assembly source written in Windela syntax. Because it seems that more
people can read NASM syntax, I converted some of my demos to NASM.
NASM's macro system isn't powerful enough to directly assembly Windela
source code, but it at least can assembly code which looks more like
Windela code than the awful Intel syntax. But I only wrote macros
for the instructions and addressing modes used in this demos, not
for the complete instruction set. At least now nobody can claim I
post an exotic assembly syntax because it's directly compiled by
NASM and therefore this would mean to claim, that NASM uses an exotic
assembly syntax.
|
