Re: a problem on masm32\m32lib\a2dw.asm win7

[TouEnMasm]

Why only unsigned number ?
There is just a very few lines to add for signed or unsigned Numbers.
Example:satodw

Code Select Expand


; #########################################################################

satodw proc String:DWORD
    local moins:DWORD
  ; ----------------------------------------
  ; Convert decimal string signed or unsigned into dword value
  ; return value in eax
  ; ----------------------------------------

    push esi
    push edi

    xor eax, eax
   mov moins,0
    mov esi, String
   .if byte ptr [esi] == "-" || byte ptr [esi] == "+"
        .if byte ptr [esi] == "-"
inc esi
                mov moins,1
         .else
                inc esi
         .endif
   .endif
    xor ecx, ecx
    xor edx, edx
    mov al, [esi]
    inc esi
    cmp al, 2D
    jne proceed
    mov al, byte ptr [esi]
    not edx
    inc esi
    jmp proceed

  @@:
    sub al, 30h
    lea ecx, dword ptr [ecx+4*ecx]
    lea ecx, dword ptr [eax+2*ecx]
    mov al, byte ptr [esi]
    inc esi

  proceed:
    or al, al
    jne @B
    lea eax, dword ptr [edx+ecx]
    xor eax, edx
   .if moins == 1
not eax
                inc eax
   .endif
    pop edi
    pop esi

    ret

satodw endp


[hutch--]

> Why only unsigned number ?

Easy, that is what it was designed to do. I am not personally a fan of multiple combined capacities, just do one of each.

[dedndave]

in this case, signed makes sense, though   :P

if it's unsigned, there shouldn't be a "-" in front of it - lol

[TouEnMasm]

I have posted a modified atodw who accept the sign - and + and signed number.

[jj2007]

if it's unsigned, there shouldn't be a "-" in front of it

Valid point :t

[hutch--]

I have always encouraged people to write what they like but this library will retain the distinction between signed and unsigned, I don't support the idea of blending capacities together, its the slippery slope to un-analysed high level objects instead of being components.

[TouEnMasm]

To make please everyone,i have recall it satodw,(signed atodw)
OK ?

[hutch--]

Try the module "atol proc lpSrc:DWORD", it handles signed DWORD values.

[TouEnMasm]

same results and same speed than the satodw.
bad thing,the name made a conflict with the crt function.
The crt function atol add a control of the overflow,-80000000h to 7FFFFFFFh (msdn)

[hutch--]

 

It does not conflict with crt_atoi which is the form that masm32 calls the MSVCRT dll. The point being that you never ever change an existing functionality of a procedure or you break someone's code. As far as the name, priority is given to procedures in the library over any external procedure names.

[jj2007]

BTW what happened to atou?

[TouEnMasm]

 

It does not conflict with crt_atoi

Do not be in conflict with itself is a great success  :idea:

[hutch--]

You seem to miss it, MASM is not committed to the naming conventions of other compilers and assemblers.

[Gunther]

You seem to miss it, MASM is not committed to the naming conventions of other compilers and assemblers.

Right.  :t That's in principle the freedom and preference of assembly language.

Gunther