gcc inline asm syntax is the worst system except for none of the othershttps://twitter.com/isislovecruft/status/1153422601664049152 …
-
-
Replying to @johnregehr
I remember MSVC inline asm being pretty awesome, actually. You could mix variables into your assembly language and it would mostly “just work”. Possibly just rose-colored glasses though.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton @johnregehr
It just worked right up until it didn't, and then you couldn't do anything about it. With GCC the solution will totally undocumented, but after you read the compiler source code and figure it out, you can actually solve your problem.
4 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @stephentyrone @johnregehr
There’s a full set of (runtime!!) control flow constructs and everything in Microsoft’s assemblerhttps://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/assembler/masm/directives-reference?view=vs-2019 …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Also as I recall you can say things like “mov rax,[rbx+rbx+rbx+rbx]” and it’ll assemble to “mov rax,qword ptr [4*rbx]”…it has some sort of symbolic engine in there
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Also symbol names are typed, so `mov rax, [butts]` is a different instruction depending on whether you declared `butts` with db/dw/dd/dq
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Not gonna lie, that’s kind of awesome
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.