Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

ASM > C++

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 23:16

prove me wrong
x86 asm btw

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 23:34

I don't think anyone will.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 23:36

You can't, because C++ is concentrated fail.

But ASM > all.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 23:49

Assembly languages are faggotry. Real compilers will produce better code than manual assembly-hacking possibly can, and they will do so much faster, since the actual code can be written in a real language.
gb2 compiler theory.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-31 23:49

asm is useless now

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 0:29

>>4
Real compilers are made with manual assembly hacking

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 0:49

Inline assembly in C = concentrated win

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 0:53

x86 is good for:

-Bragging rights
-Ridiculous debugging
-Bypassing the 30-day trial limit on whatever crap

not programming

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 2:15

6502 OR GTFO

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 4:06

All other asm > x86 asm.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 4:21

asm and c++ both fail

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 4:34

arm asm > x86 asm

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 4:37

>>12
RISC architectures in general > x86/64

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 5:31

>>13
Why?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 6:26

>>14
The modern x86 chips are RISCs with a built in x86 compatibility layer. You may as well get rid of that layer of processing cruft (no matter how insignificant it plays in the grand scheme of computer processing) and have the compilers write to a RISC.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 6:31

K1810BM86 or gtfo.
Also sparc.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 7:17

LMC ASM FTW

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 7:51

>>15
Wikipedia informs me that x86 is a CISC type architecture. Can you please clarify what you mean with this compatibility layer business?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 7:58

>>18
Sorry mate. I read it in an article somewhere on the net. I don't remember which one. You know how it is with all these tech sites - you can never remember where you get your info from because there are so many locations for them. But I guess it's more correct to say that modern x86 implementations are 'basically RISC chips' rather than to say it is a true RISC.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 8:18

>>18
AFAIK all modern x86 processors decode opcodes into easier to handle μops (micro ops). These are basically RISC instructions, with a fixed length.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 9:20

I'm a believer, /prog/.

I believe that programmers are super-humans.
I believe that programmers' high level programming language should be assembly.
I believe.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 11:48

MIPS ASM >> GOD

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 13:40

RISCs are boring and unimaginative. At least CISCs let you do more in one instruction.

Asm + C + C++ > *

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 14:49

>>9
LDA your mom

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 15:11

C + C++
are you some kind of a retard ?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 15:43

>>22
Exactly the kind of CPU you'd normally not want to program without a compiler. But I understand how it makes noobs feel like they actually know a shit as they stumble around writing horribly inefficient MIPS assembler code.

One day you'll look back and realize how retarded you were.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 15:44

>>23 is confirmed to be a retard and should stop bragging how OMG OPTIMISED -O3 on gcc is

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 16:44

>>27
You can't tune an assembly, but you can recompile the assembler and linker with -O3.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 17:46

>>28
Recompiling the assembler/linker with -O3 won't affect the output it produces. It'll just make the assembler/linker produce the same output faster. And you can't tune a fish.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 18:02

>>29
You can tuna fishes.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-01 22:55

>>26
I write MIPS ASM for my SGI Octane... I'm not some stupid faggot running SPIM saying OH GEE GUYS MY COMMUNITY COLLEGE COURSE IN ASSEMBLY IS MAKING ME SO SMART.

In summary, GTFO.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-02 6:10

>>31
Why do you write assembler on it? Is there an actual purpose or are you just waving your tiny nerd-cock around?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-02 12:53

>>31
I write MIPS ASM for my SGI Octane.
ROTFL. You just confirmed that you're a nubster. Now if you had said you do it for some embedded system, okay. But an SGI Octane... OMG LOL HARDOFAIL.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-02 13:50

Unless >>31 needs access to certain SIMD instructions, he's a gigantic homosexualist.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-02 17:27

>>31
I write ARM ASM for my DS. Oh wait, no I don't. I write in C and use one of the GCC cross compilers with -O2. Faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-02 18:45

>>34
It should go without saying he doesn't. He's programming on an ancient SGI just to enlarge his tiny programmer penis.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-02 18:50

I like how everyone is smashing >>31 for no reason at all; sounds to me like jealousy. Humans can be terrible creatures indeed...

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-02 18:55

>>37
sounds to me like jealousy
This sounds more like you don't have an SGI Octane. GTFO.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-02 18:58

ITT: >>31 being proud of having found an outdated piece of SGI hardware in the trash.

Don't worry, you'll get over this nerd trash collector thing eventually when you get a real job and start to throw machines like that out all the time.

Then again, you're dumb enough to attempt enlarging your penis on /prog/, so maybe not.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-03 0:45

>>21
I never thought I'd find someone who reads XtASM on /prog/.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-03 2:02

Any ideas where i can get tutorial on learning asm ? Not much guide on it beside C/C++

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-03 2:15

>>41
ASM for what exactly?

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-03 2:17

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-03 2:17

Linux x86 to be exact or Windows

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-03 2:18

>>44
He was asking about the CPU you want to target.

Name: Noob_41 2007-11-03 2:22

Thanks a bunch u guys!

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-03 2:23

>>44

an i386 32 bit proc..  don`t have any 64 bit procs yet

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-03 2:24

You might also dig up The Graphics Programming Black Book. Iirc it's got quit a bit of ASM info.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-03 14:28

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-03 14:56

>>48
Oh man, I remember that. Incredibly difficult.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-03 19:54

>>48
GPU ASM? thats a lost art

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-03 20:07

>>51
Lost for very good reasons.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-03 22:02

>>51 GPU
Uh, those are pretty new for it to be a "lost art". We're talking about CPU ASM for graphics. You see, back in the day the graphics card did very little except provide way for the CPU to put pixels on the screen.

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-04 4:11

>>52 hasnt seen any before

>>53
what I meant was not many people have the knowledge of GPU assembly to write and control the GPU directly as opposed to many that knows CPU ASM

well to be fair, GPU asm is all matrix and vector operations these days anyway, so learning abit of SIMD and MMX would suffice

Name: Anonymous 2007-11-04 10:35

>>54
Okay, but the GPBB is still not about GPU ASM.

Name: Anonymous 2010-11-25 10:14

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-04 17:59

<

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List