On 13 Feb 2008 12:44:16 GMT, Optimus Prime wrote:
> "H-Man <I-Hate@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>
>>For a viable alternative you might consider PureBasic. It's my
>>language of choice for right now. Small and really tight executables,
Linux
>>and MAC versions, GUI designer, console progs and DLLs. Inline ASM, and
a
>>library compiler rounds out the offerings. It really is a lot of
>>development tool for the money. The PureBasic commmunity is very
>>knowlegeable and very helpful, and AFAIK no one has been axed from the
>>forums. PureBasic has been around since 1998 and has a strong following.
>>Nothing is forever but it looks to remain for a while. Please don't
>>misunderstand, I'm not dissing PowerBASIC or the products thereof, the
>>reputation of these products speaks for itself, I am however advocating
>>PureBasic as a worthy alternative.
>
> Does the PureBsic inline ASM sup****t extended instructions such
> as SSE3 and AMD64 / EM64T? How about PoweBasic? FreeBasic?
****************************
From the PureBasic docs:
PureBasic allows you to include any x86 assembler commands (including MMX
and FPU one) directly in the source code, as if it was a real assembler.
And it gives you even more: you can use directly any variables or pointers
in the assembler keywords, you can put any ASM commands on the same line,
.... The syntax is the FAsm (http://flatassembler.net)
one, so if you want
more informations about the ASM syntax, just read the FAsm guide.
There are serveral ways to activate the inline assembler:
- check the "inline assembler" compiler option via the IDE
- use the /INLINEASM command line compiler switch
- use the compiler directives EnableASM and DisableASM
****************************
It does sup****t anything FAsm sup****ts although I'm not sure how much good
it'll do you to include x86-64 instructions in a 32bit program. That is
for
people way smarter than I am. I mostly cut and paste ASM when I need an
optimized routine for speed.
--
HK
|
