HJWasm

[habran]

I am glad you are aware what are you doing to me, you and Johnsa, is that what your JJ mans Johan & John :P

[johnsa]

Haha :) Have to keep you on your toes! And all these additions just help to make it awesome! ;)

[habran]

I am just grumpy old f**t ;)

[habran]

I have better idea about it :idea:
I will leave 32 bit compatible with masm32 without DO, DY, DZ
but 64 bit will have  it built in
what do you reckon?

[jj2007]

I have better idea about it :idea:
I will leave 32 bit compatible with masm32 without DO, DY, DZ
but 64 bit will have  it built in
what do you reckon?

Sounds OK for me, but I can't speak for the 64 bit community

[habran]

To me the most important is what you think ;)

[rrr314159]

Don't forget we can just use "option nokeyword:<dy>" if we don't want it, so it's not that big a deal. Conversely if you leave it out we can just use "dy equ YMMWORD", which I've already been doing when I find myself typing "ymmword" a lot. BTW have you fixed that bug where we have to put "xmmword ptr" even when the compiler should know the type? That's more important. Unfortunately I can't check it because your latest versions have problems with my weird code, as mentioned b4, and I haven't figured out why yet

[habran]

Don't forget we can just use "option nokeyword:<dy>"

is the best thing :t

have you fixed that bug where we have to put "xmmword ptr" even when the compiler should know the type?

Yes sir 8)

[rrr314159]

Great, gives me incentive to figure out why my weird code (with many macros, does 32/64, SSE/AVX, real4/real8 all with same source) is having problems with latest versions.

BTW I've noticed another little bug which perhaps you could fix in your spare time . Often I intend to type, for example, "mov eax, ecx" but accidentally type, say, "mov ebx, ecx". Now, it's perfectly obvious from the flow of the code that I meant the first not the second: it's just a typo. And yet your HJWasm always uses ebx instead of what I obviously meant, eax (in this example). It's a small thing but very annoying, and if you could fix it I'd be grateful.

Thanks in advance ...

[habran]

Hi TripleR,
HJwasm is still wearing nappies, when he grows a little bit I will send him to UNI to study telepathy ;)
hope you'll still be around

[jj2007]

Now, it's perfectly obvious from the flow of the code

3r,

You should at least give a few examples to Habran, so that he can derive the logic for HJWasm 8)

[johnsa]

Surely an assemblers job is to assemble what you tell it, not for it to attempt to guess at your intention.
I don't think there is anyway that it could know you meant mov eax,ecx instead of mov ebx,ecx regardless of the flow. Your could be copying the value for the later use for all it knows!
My suggestion is.. don't make typos :) :)

I think the 32/64 should remain as similar as possible, so whatever solution we use it should be common to both. Either:
OPTION DATATYPE:1      ; for both (32/64) alike
Or we leave it as is (with new datatype directives) and people should use the nokeyword solution?
Let's take a vote on this.

I've tested the requirement of the xmmword ptr and it appears to be resolved in all my tests. vmovaps xmm(n),[rsi] ; for example assembles correctly and uses xmm instead of ymm.

That said do you have any indication as to what potentially is failing in your code rrr? (Is it run-time or assemble time error?, code or macro related?) Perhaps we can help narrow it down if it's some sort of regression that's occurred in the new versions.

[jj2007]

Or we leave it as is (with new datatype directives) and people should use the nokeyword solution?

You volunteer to explain "nokeyword" to the noobs in the next 20 years? Otherwise,

we can just use "dy equ YMMWORD", which I've already been doing when I find myself typing "ymmword" a lot

[johnsa]

Or we leave it as is (with new datatype directives) and people should use the nokeyword solution?

You volunteer to explain "nokeyword" to the noobs in the next 20 years? Otherwise,

we can just use "dy equ YMMWORD", which I've already been doing when I find myself typing "ymmword" a lot

I said a vote :) My vote is still for the new OPTION, saves me having to declare the equates and stops noobs from getting confused and generally keeps everyone happy and 32/64 working in the same way.

[jj2007]

My vote is still for the new OPTION, saves me having to declare the equates and stops noobs from getting confused and generally keeps everyone happy and 32/64 working in the same way.

Code Select Expand

include \masm32\include\masm32rt.inc

; OPTION DATATYPE:1 ; error A2008: syntax error : DATATYPE
dy equ ymmword ; works like a charm

.code

start: print "Hello World"
exit

end start