This might be slighty off track.
…thought some of u might be knowing this…
i am looking for the syntax / various arguemnts that
__asm() can take.
for ex: to copy a register in to local variable
__asm(“mov %0,ra” : “=&r” (variable_name));
can some one point me to a link that states the syntax
or some kind of description on some generic usage of
__asm ?
==
sriram
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
If you have any version on MSC use Infoviewer with the query __asm. It’ll put you on track. (The syntax you are using looks “GNU’ish” to me (?))
-----Original Message-----
From: Sriram Neelakandan Iyer [mailto:xxxxx@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 1:35 PM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] __asm Syntax
This might be slighty off track.
…thought some of u might be knowing this…
i am looking for the syntax / various arguemnts that
__asm() can take.
for ex: to copy a register in to local variable
__asm(“mov %0,ra” : “=&r” (variable_name));
can some one point me to a link that states the syntax
or some kind of description on some generic usage of
__asm ?
==
sriram
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@livco.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
yup! i am using GNU C compiler and the context
is that of GNU __asm syntax.
— “Miramonti, John”
wrote:
> If you have any version on MSC use Infoviewer with
> the query asm. It’ll put you on track. (The
> syntax you are using looks “GNU’ish” to me (?))
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sriram Neelakandan Iyer
> [mailto:xxxxx@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 1:35 PM
> To: NT Developers Interest List
> Subject: [ntdev]asm Syntax
>
>
> This might be slighty off track.
> …thought some of u might be knowing this…
> i am looking for the syntax / various arguemnts that
> asm() can take.
> for ex: to copy a register in to local variable
>asm(“mov %0,ra” : “=&r” (variable_name));
> can some one point me to a link that states the
> syntax
> or some kind of description on some generic usage of
> asm ?
>
> ==
> sriram
>
>
>________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
>
> —
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
> xxxxx@livco.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
>
> —
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
> xxxxx@yahoo.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
%%email.unsub%%
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
It allows one to insert MASM-style assembler. e.g. to copy to a variable
myVariable from eax
__asm
{
mov myVariable, eax
}
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Sriram Neelakandan Iyer wrote:
This might be slighty off track.
…thought some of u might be knowing this…
i am looking for the syntax / various arguemnts that
__asm() can take.
for ex: to copy a register in to local variable
__asm(“mov %0,ra” : “=&r” (variable_name));
can some one point me to a link that states the syntax
or some kind of description on some generic usage of
__asm ?==
sriram
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@inkvine.fluff.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
–
Peter xxxxx@inkvine.fluff.org
http://www.inkvine.fluff.org/~peter/
logic kicks ass:
(1) Horses have an even number of legs.
(2) They have two legs in back and fore legs in front.
(3) This makes a total of six legs, which certainly is an odd number of
legs for a horse.
(4) But the only number that is both odd and even is infinity.
(5) Therefore, horses must have an infinite number of legs.
> yup! i am using GNU C compiler and the context
is that of GNU __asm syntax.
Are you using GNU C compiler for writing NT drivers?!
Vladimir Ignatov
At 20.20 03/06/2002, you wrote:
> yup! i am using GNU C compiler and the context
> is that of GNU __asm syntax.
Are you using GNU C compiler for writing NT drivers?!
Why not? You can even write NT itself with GNU C:
http:</http:>
At 19.35 03/06/2002, you wrote:
for ex: to copy a register in to local variable
__asm(“mov %0,ra” : “=&r” (variable_name));
nope:
The correct syntax of your example, therefore, is:
asm(“movl %ra,%0\n” : “=&r” (operand));
can some one point me to a link that states the syntax or some kind of
description on some generic usage of __asm ?
download the gcc manual. It’s all explained there
At 19.46 03/06/2002, you wrote:
yup! i am using GNU C compiler and the context
is that of GNU __asm syntax.
if you also use the GNU linker from binutils, an undocumented limitation
you’d better know is that it doesn’t calculate the PE checksum. User-mode
executables will run with a null or invalid checksum, kernel-mode will not
No one said you can’t. However, it is not recommended. And if you do, then
basically you are on your own. The recommended method for building a driver
is using the DDK with a Microsoft compiler, usually at least Professional.
XP drivers are best compiled with the compiler(s) that accompany the XP DDK.
I guess the point is you can spend your time writing drivers or trying to
get your development system (GNU, WatCom, Borland) to build a driver that
might load. Personally, I prefer eliminating headaches that are not needed…
–
Gary G. Little
xxxxx@broadstor.com
xxxxx@inland.net
“KJK::Hyperion” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>
> At 20.20 03/06/2002, you wrote:
> > > yup! i am using GNU C compiler and the context
> > > is that of GNU __asm syntax.
> >Are you using GNU C compiler for writing NT drivers?!
>
> Why not? You can even write NT itself with GNU C:
>
> http:</http:>
>
>
>
Competition is healthy ! I personally believe if one depends on the tools to
be able to make a piece of software, that alone tells me that the
development environment may be unsound. A kernel-side production component
should NOT depend on particular compiler, linker or builder quirks. And I
don’t see why I should believe in the hands of a Microsoft compiler any more
than I should trust the guys that do GNU, WatCom or Borland. I also believe
that if the OS maintains a well-known and well-document set of APIs, a
healthy driver should build basically with any compiler and with any linker.
If it doesn’t, the problem isn’t the driver or the compiler or the linker,
the problem is the dependency on a single compiler, and THAT is what should
be weeded out. So, if I cannot build a healthy driver with the GNU compiler,
and I need the DDK compiler because the DDK takes advantage of some compiler
quirk, that’s a DDK problem that should be addressed and fixed by Microsoft.
Actually, I know that’s utopia given the on-going amoeba mentality, but my
personal take is, I am reluctant in releasing any piece of software that I
cannot build with at least two different compilers and build environments.
Depending on a single set of tools gives me the jitters.
Alberto.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary G. Little [mailto:xxxxx@broadstor.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:45 PM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Re: __asm Syntax
No one said you can’t. However, it is not recommended. And if you do, then
basically you are on your own. The recommended method for building a driver
is using the DDK with a Microsoft compiler, usually at least Professional.
XP drivers are best compiled with the compiler(s) that accompany the XP DDK.
I guess the point is you can spend your time writing drivers or trying to
get your development system (GNU, WatCom, Borland) to build a driver that
might load. Personally, I prefer eliminating headaches that are not needed…
–
Gary G. Little
xxxxx@broadstor.com
xxxxx@inland.net
“KJK::Hyperion” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>
> At 20.20 03/06/2002, you wrote:
> > > yup! i am using GNU C compiler and the context
> > > is that of GNU __asm syntax.
> >Are you using GNU C compiler for writing NT drivers?!
>
> Why not? You can even write NT itself with GNU C:
>
> http:</http:>
>
>
>
—
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@compuware.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It
contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named
addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose
it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately
and then destroy it.
> Actually, I know that’s utopia given the on-going amoeba mentality, but my
personal take is, I am reluctant in releasing any piece of software that I
cannot build with at least two different compilers and build environments.
Depending on a single set of tools gives me the jitters.
Not that this is totally relavent, but can the linux kernel be built
with watcom or borland, etc?
-sd
Oddly enough I disagree entirely with the latest opinion from Alberto :-).
There is no risk here in a single source for the tools, as we are talking
about a single-sourced operating system, the vendor of which explicitly
requires that kernel components be built using the specified tools, also
provided by the same vendor. I simply am having a hard time imagining the
scenario where NT continues as a product but the compilation tools do not,
or the vendor refuses to address issues in the compilation tools that affect
the successful production of OS components. Perhaps the closest to risk here
would have been a breakup of microsoft that left the compiler tools in
msapps rather than in msos. Mr Little’s observation that going down the
rat-hole of unsupported build environments seems like a complete waste of
time and money is right on target.
-----Original Message-----
From: Moreira, Alberto [mailto:xxxxx@compuware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:09 PM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Re: __asm SyntaxCompetition is healthy ! I personally believe if one depends
on the tools to be able to make a piece of software, that
alone tells me that the development environment may be
unsound. A kernel-side production component should NOT depend
on particular compiler, linker or builder quirks. And I don’t
see why I should believe in the hands of a Microsoft compiler
any more than I should trust the guys that do GNU, WatCom or
Borland. I also believe that if the OS maintains a well-known
and well-document set of APIs, a healthy driver should build
basically with any compiler and with any linker. If it
doesn’t, the problem isn’t the driver or the compiler or the
linker, the problem is the dependency on a single compiler,
and THAT is what should be weeded out. So, if I cannot build
a healthy driver with the GNU compiler, and I need the DDK
compiler because the DDK takes advantage of some compiler
quirk, that’s a DDK problem that should be addressed and
fixed by Microsoft.Actually, I know that’s utopia given the on-going amoeba
mentality, but my personal take is, I am reluctant in
releasing any piece of software that I cannot build with at
least two different compilers and build environments.
Depending on a single set of tools gives me the jitters.Alberto.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary G. Little [mailto:xxxxx@broadstor.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:45 PM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Re: __asm SyntaxNo one said you can’t. However, it is not recommended. And if
you do, then basically you are on your own. The recommended
method for building a driver is using the DDK with a
Microsoft compiler, usually at least Professional. XP drivers
are best compiled with the compiler(s) that accompany the XP DDK.I guess the point is you can spend your time writing drivers
or trying to get your development system (GNU, WatCom,
Borland) to build a driver that might load. Personally, I
prefer eliminating headaches that are not needed…–
Gary G. Little
xxxxx@broadstor.com
xxxxx@inland.net“KJK::Hyperion” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> >
> > At 20.20 03/06/2002, you wrote:
> > > > yup! i am using GNU C compiler and the context
> > > > is that of GNU __asm syntax.
> > >Are you using GNU C compiler for writing NT drivers?!
> >
> > Why not? You can even write NT itself with GNU C:
> >
> > http:</http:>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> —
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
> xxxxx@compuware.com To unsubscribe send a blank
> email to %%email.unsub%%
>
>
>
> The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named
> addressee only. It contains information that may be
> confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an
> authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose
> it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify
> us immediately and then destroy it.
>
>
> —
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
> xxxxx@stratus.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> %%email.unsub%%
>
Mark, single source is not the issue. The issue is the dependency on
specific tools, the reasons for it. Why ? Give me a good reason to be
depending on one specific compiler, linker, builder ? Why is it that a build
environment must be “supported” ? A system’s runtime should be independent
of the tools used at build time. And the interfaces and calling sequences
are either well documented and well defined, or they’re not.
In my mind, what’s a rat-hole is to rely on a single build front end to cure
back-end sloppiness.
We do have an ANSI standard for the C language, so, compiler compatibility
issues should boil down to call sequences and that kind of lower level
stuff. Define them well, and compiler dependencies disappear. And here,
again, I have a beef if I cannot get a driver working when I turn on the
ANSI compatibility switch and frig out anything that’s not bog standard C.
Otherwise it’s a mess, eh ? You guys talk so much about quality, yet you
forget the most basic cornerstones of safe coding.
Alberto.
-----Original Message-----
From: Roddy, Mark [mailto:xxxxx@stratus.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:40 PM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Re: __asm Syntax
Oddly enough I disagree entirely with the latest opinion from Alberto :-).
There is no risk here in a single source for the tools, as we are talking
about a single-sourced operating system, the vendor of which explicitly
requires that kernel components be built using the specified tools, also
provided by the same vendor. I simply am having a hard time imagining the
scenario where NT continues as a product but the compilation tools do not,
or the vendor refuses to address issues in the compilation tools that affect
the successful production of OS components. Perhaps the closest to risk here
would have been a breakup of microsoft that left the compiler tools in
msapps rather than in msos. Mr Little’s observation that going down the
rat-hole of unsupported build environments seems like a complete waste of
time and money is right on target.
-----Original Message-----
From: Moreira, Alberto [mailto:xxxxx@compuware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:09 PM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Re: __asm SyntaxCompetition is healthy ! I personally believe if one depends
on the tools to be able to make a piece of software, that
alone tells me that the development environment may be
unsound. A kernel-side production component should NOT depend
on particular compiler, linker or builder quirks. And I don’t
see why I should believe in the hands of a Microsoft compiler
any more than I should trust the guys that do GNU, WatCom or
Borland. I also believe that if the OS maintains a well-known
and well-document set of APIs, a healthy driver should build
basically with any compiler and with any linker. If it
doesn’t, the problem isn’t the driver or the compiler or the
linker, the problem is the dependency on a single compiler,
and THAT is what should be weeded out. So, if I cannot build
a healthy driver with the GNU compiler, and I need the DDK
compiler because the DDK takes advantage of some compiler
quirk, that’s a DDK problem that should be addressed and
fixed by Microsoft.Actually, I know that’s utopia given the on-going amoeba
mentality, but my personal take is, I am reluctant in
releasing any piece of software that I cannot build with at
least two different compilers and build environments.
Depending on a single set of tools gives me the jitters.Alberto.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary G. Little [mailto:xxxxx@broadstor.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:45 PM
To: NT Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Re: __asm SyntaxNo one said you can’t. However, it is not recommended. And if
you do, then basically you are on your own. The recommended
method for building a driver is using the DDK with a
Microsoft compiler, usually at least Professional. XP drivers
are best compiled with the compiler(s) that accompany the XP DDK.I guess the point is you can spend your time writing drivers
or trying to get your development system (GNU, WatCom,
Borland) to build a driver that might load. Personally, I
prefer eliminating headaches that are not needed…–
Gary G. Little
xxxxx@broadstor.com
xxxxx@inland.net“KJK::Hyperion” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> >
> > At 20.20 03/06/2002, you wrote:
> > > > yup! i am using GNU C compiler and the context
> > > > is that of GNU __asm syntax.
> > >Are you using GNU C compiler for writing NT drivers?!
> >
> > Why not? You can even write NT itself with GNU C:
> >
> > http:</http:>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> —
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
> xxxxx@compuware.com To unsubscribe send a blank
> email to %%email.unsub%%
>
>
>
> The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named
> addressee only. It contains information that may be
> confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an
> authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose
> it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify
> us immediately and then destroy it.
>
>
> —
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
> xxxxx@stratus.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> %%email.unsub%%
>
—
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@compuware.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It
contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named
addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose
it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately
and then destroy it.
At 20.20 04/06/2002, you wrote:
> Actually, I know that’s utopia given the on-going amoeba mentality, but my
> personal take is, I am reluctant in releasing any piece of software that I
> cannot build with at least two different compilers and build environments.
> Depending on a single set of tools gives me the jitters.
Not that this is totally relavent, but can the linux kernel be built with
watcom or borland, etc?
When you write a kernel, your last worry is portability between compilers
and/or standard compliance: you choose one compiler, one linker, one
assembler, and stick with them, so that you don’t have to worry about
features missing from other tools, or worse bugs that can introduce errors
difficult to diagnosticate
The ABI and API are another matter, of course
Interesting thread! So could not resist to take the liberty to drop
some lines ( or …). I’m as some are all of us aware about this choice
and/or preference about having one build env. or multiple build env. I’ve
seen as you all may have, that some slack of foresight takes much longer
to
get a solid product than was planned for, so getting something within time
(
whatever heck that means ) is an wonderful topic for fights. For one
thing,
I’ve not seen ( in how many years ? roughly 20) that a project has been
finished within time (whatever heck that means).
So my question is who is saving time/money in what defined way ? Oh, yes
we can always take a path to save our face. But the reality is Better
design, complete desing ( whatever heck that means … ) and for that sure
we should think about multiple env. Again, this is my opinion, may very
well
be lack of foresight, but surely not ready to take the timing game and use
everything or anything from one vendor. REMEMBER THAT WATCOM ENVIRONMENT,
YOU CAN BUILD DOS, WIN3.1, OS2, AND NT3.1 DRIVERS AND/APPS FROM ONE BUILD
ENV. AND LOT OF GUYS SPENT THEIR VALUABLE TIME TO PUT ANALYTICAL RESULT
THAT
WATCOM WAS MUCH MORE SOLID AND OPTIMEZED AT THAT TIME. WHAT DOES IT
PROVE???
IF WE RELY ON ONE VENDOR, WE KNOW WHAT GETS PUMPED THRU OUR THROAT,
SOMETIME
HORSE …
-PROKASH
I dunno … Really all I am hearing, like so many other times, is Alberto
yelling “I did it MYYYYY WWWWAAAAYYYYYYY!!!” off key and very very badly.
I really really really REALLY do NOT care that I it is a pain in the ass to
use GNU or Watcom or Borland or
WhatEver-C. I use Microsoft tools to developed for Microsoft products. It
greatly reduces the need for antacid tablets and I note my doctor is ever so
much more happy with my blood pressure. Anyone that wants to can use any
build environment that causes their heart to go pitter pat. I really do NOT
care. However … please please do waste bandwidth and us other MICROSOFT
DEVELOPERS time by getting one hear and BITCHING how MICROSOFT won;'t let
you build a driver with GNU.
Microsoft is like me. They really do not care if you can or cannot developed
a driver suing GNU, and indeed why the bloody hell should they when the
provide a tool that does the job quite well.
–
Gary G. Little
xxxxx@broadstor.com
xxxxx@inland.net
“Moreira, Alberto” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>
> Mark, single source is not the issue. The issue is the dependency on
> specific tools, the reasons for it. Why ? Give me a good reason to be
> depending on one specific compiler, linker, builder ? Why is it that a
build
> environment must be “supported” ? A system’s runtime should be independent
> of the tools used at build time. And the interfaces and calling sequences
> are either well documented and well defined, or they’re not.
>
> In my mind, what’s a rat-hole is to rely on a single build front end to
cure
> back-end sloppiness.
>
> We do have an ANSI standard for the C language, so, compiler compatibility
> issues should boil down to call sequences and that kind of lower level
> stuff. Define them well, and compiler dependencies disappear. And here,
> again, I have a beef if I cannot get a driver working when I turn on the
> ANSI compatibility switch and frig out anything that’s not bog standard C.
> Otherwise it’s a mess, eh ? You guys talk so much about quality, yet you
> forget the most basic cornerstones of safe coding.
>
>
> Alberto.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roddy, Mark [mailto:xxxxx@stratus.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:40 PM
> To: NT Developers Interest List
> Subject: [ntdev] Re: __asm Syntax
>
>
> Oddly enough I disagree entirely with the latest opinion from Alberto :-).
>
> There is no risk here in a single source for the tools, as we are talking
> about a single-sourced operating system, the vendor of which explicitly
> requires that kernel components be built using the specified tools, also
> provided by the same vendor. I simply am having a hard time imagining the
> scenario where NT continues as a product but the compilation tools do not,
> or the vendor refuses to address issues in the compilation tools that
affect
> the successful production of OS components. Perhaps the closest to risk
here
> would have been a breakup of microsoft that left the compiler tools in
> msapps rather than in msos. Mr Little’s observation that going down the
> rat-hole of unsupported build environments seems like a complete waste of
> time and money is right on target.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Moreira, Alberto [mailto:xxxxx@compuware.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:09 PM
> > To: NT Developers Interest List
> > Subject: [ntdev] Re:__asm Syntax
> >
> >
> > Competition is healthy ! I personally believe if one depends
> > on the tools to be able to make a piece of software, that
> > alone tells me that the development environment may be
> > unsound. A kernel-side production component should NOT depend
> > on particular compiler, linker or builder quirks. And I don’t
> > see why I should believe in the hands of a Microsoft compiler
> > any more than I should trust the guys that do GNU, WatCom or
> > Borland. I also believe that if the OS maintains a well-known
> > and well-document set of APIs, a healthy driver should build
> > basically with any compiler and with any linker. If it
> > doesn’t, the problem isn’t the driver or the compiler or the
> > linker, the problem is the dependency on a single compiler,
> > and THAT is what should be weeded out. So, if I cannot build
> > a healthy driver with the GNU compiler, and I need the DDK
> > compiler because the DDK takes advantage of some compiler
> > quirk, that’s a DDK problem that should be addressed and
> > fixed by Microsoft.
> >
> >
> > Actually, I know that’s utopia given the on-going amoeba
> > mentality, but my personal take is, I am reluctant in
> > releasing any piece of software that I cannot build with at
> > least two different compilers and build environments.
> > Depending on a single set of tools gives me the jitters.
> >
> >
> > Alberto.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gary G. Little [mailto:xxxxx@broadstor.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:45 PM
> > To: NT Developers Interest List
> > Subject: [ntdev] Re: __asm Syntax
> >
> >
> > No one said you can’t. However, it is not recommended. And if
> > you do, then basically you are on your own. The recommended
> > method for building a driver is using the DDK with a
> > Microsoft compiler, usually at least Professional. XP drivers
> > are best compiled with the compiler(s) that accompany the XP DDK.
> >
> > I guess the point is you can spend your time writing drivers
> > or trying to get your development system (GNU, WatCom,
> > Borland) to build a driver that might load. Personally, I
> > prefer eliminating headaches that are not needed…
> >
> > –
> > Gary G. Little
> > xxxxx@broadstor.com
> > xxxxx@inland.net
> >
> > “KJK::Hyperion” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> > >
> > > At 20.20 03/06/2002, you wrote:
> > > > > yup! i am using GNU C compiler and the context
> > > > > is that of GNU__asm syntax.
> > > >Are you using GNU C compiler for writing NT drivers?!
> > >
> > > Why not? You can even write NT itself with GNU C:
> > >
> > > http:</http:>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > —
> > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
> > xxxxx@compuware.com To unsubscribe send a blank
> > email to %%email.unsub%%
> >
> >
> >
> > The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named
> > addressee only. It contains information that may be
> > confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an
> > authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose
> > it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify
> > us immediately and then destroy it.
> >
> >
> > —
> > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
> > xxxxx@stratus.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > %%email.unsub%%
> >
>
> —
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@compuware.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
>
>
>
> The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It
> contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named
> addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or
disclose
> it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us
immediately
> and then destroy it.
>
>
>
Microsoft feeds a lot of bastards like you!!!
Microsoft is an evil himself!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary G. Little
Newsgroups: ntdev
To: NT Developers Interest List
Date: 2002~{Dj~}6~{TB~}5~{HU~} 9:16
Subject: [ntdev] Re: __asm Syntax
>I dunno … Really all I am hearing, like so many other times, is Alberto
>yelling “I did it MYYYYY WWWWAAAAYYYYYYY!!!” off key and very very badly.
>
>I really really really REALLY do NOT care that I it is a pain in the ass to
>use GNU or Watcom or Borland or
>WhatEver-C. I use Microsoft tools to developed for Microsoft products. It
>greatly reduces the need for antacid tablets and I note my doctor is ever
so
>much more happy with my blood pressure. Anyone that wants to can use any
>build environment that causes their heart to go pitter pat. I really do NOT
>care. However … please please do waste bandwidth and us other MICROSOFT
>DEVELOPERS time by getting one hear and BITCHING how MICROSOFT won;'t let
>you build a driver with GNU.
>
>Microsoft is like me. They really do not care if you can or cannot
developed
>a driver suing GNU, and indeed why the bloody hell should they when the
>provide a tool that does the job quite well.
>
>–
>Gary G. Little
>xxxxx@broadstor.com
>xxxxx@inland.net
>
>“Moreira, Alberto” wrote in message
>news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>>
>> Mark, single source is not the issue. The issue is the dependency on
>> specific tools, the reasons for it. Why ? Give me a good reason to be
>> depending on one specific compiler, linker, builder ? Why is it that a
>build
>> environment must be “supported” ? A system’s runtime should be
independent
>> of the tools used at build time. And the interfaces and calling sequences
>> are either well documented and well defined, or they’re not.
>>
>> In my mind, what’s a rat-hole is to rely on a single build front end to
>cure
>> back-end sloppiness.
>>
>> We do have an ANSI standard for the C language, so, compiler
compatibility
>> issues should boil down to call sequences and that kind of lower level
>> stuff. Define them well, and compiler dependencies disappear. And here,
>> again, I have a beef if I cannot get a driver working when I turn on the
>> ANSI compatibility switch and frig out anything that’s not bog standard
C.
>> Otherwise it’s a mess, eh ? You guys talk so much about quality, yet you
>> forget the most basic cornerstones of safe coding.
>>
>>
>> Alberto.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roddy, Mark [mailto:xxxxx@stratus.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:40 PM
>> To: NT Developers Interest List
>> Subject: [ntdev] Re:__asm Syntax
>>
>>
>> Oddly enough I disagree entirely with the latest opinion from Alberto
:-).
>>
>> There is no risk here in a single source for the tools, as we are talking
>> about a single-sourced operating system, the vendor of which explicitly
>> requires that kernel components be built using the specified tools, also
>> provided by the same vendor. I simply am having a hard time imagining the
>> scenario where NT continues as a product but the compilation tools do
not,
>> or the vendor refuses to address issues in the compilation tools that
>affect
>> the successful production of OS components. Perhaps the closest to risk
>here
>> would have been a breakup of microsoft that left the compiler tools in
>> msapps rather than in msos. Mr Little’s observation that going down the
>> rat-hole of unsupported build environments seems like a complete waste of
>> time and money is right on target.
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Moreira, Alberto [mailto:xxxxx@compuware.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:09 PM
>> > To: NT Developers Interest List
>> > Subject: [ntdev] Re: __asm Syntax
>> >
>> >
>> > Competition is healthy ! I personally believe if one depends
>> > on the tools to be able to make a piece of software, that
>> > alone tells me that the development environment may be
>> > unsound. A kernel-side production component should NOT depend
>> > on particular compiler, linker or builder quirks. And I don’t
>> > see why I should believe in the hands of a Microsoft compiler
>> > any more than I should trust the guys that do GNU, WatCom or
>> > Borland. I also believe that if the OS maintains a well-known
>> > and well-document set of APIs, a healthy driver should build
>> > basically with any compiler and with any linker. If it
>> > doesn’t, the problem isn’t the driver or the compiler or the
>> > linker, the problem is the dependency on a single compiler,
>> > and THAT is what should be weeded out. So, if I cannot build
>> > a healthy driver with the GNU compiler, and I need the DDK
>> > compiler because the DDK takes advantage of some compiler
>> > quirk, that’s a DDK problem that should be addressed and
>> > fixed by Microsoft.
>> >
>> >
>> > Actually, I know that’s utopia given the on-going amoeba
>> > mentality, but my personal take is, I am reluctant in
>> > releasing any piece of software that I cannot build with at
>> > least two different compilers and build environments.
>> > Depending on a single set of tools gives me the jitters.
>> >
>> >
>> > Alberto.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Gary G. Little [mailto:xxxxx@broadstor.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:45 PM
>> > To: NT Developers Interest List
>> > Subject: [ntdev] Re:__asm Syntax
>> >
>> >
>> > No one said you can’t. However, it is not recommended. And if
>> > you do, then basically you are on your own. The recommended
>> > method for building a driver is using the DDK with a
>> > Microsoft compiler, usually at least Professional. XP drivers
>> > are best compiled with the compiler(s) that accompany the XP DDK.
>> >
>> > I guess the point is you can spend your time writing drivers
>> > or trying to get your development system (GNU, WatCom,
>> > Borland) to build a driver that might load. Personally, I
>> > prefer eliminating headaches that are not needed…
>> >
>> > –
>> > Gary G. Little
>> > xxxxx@broadstor.com
>> > xxxxx@inland.net
>> >
>> > “KJK::Hyperion” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> > >
>> > > At 20.20 03/06/2002, you wrote:
>> > > > > yup! i am using GNU C compiler and the context
>> > > > > is that of GNU __asm syntax.
>> > > >Are you using GNU C compiler for writing NT drivers?!
>> > >
>> > > Why not? You can even write NT itself with GNU C:
>> > >
>> > > http:</http:>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > —
>> > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
>> > xxxxx@compuware.com To unsubscribe send a blank
>> > email to %%email.unsub%%
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named
>> > addressee only. It contains information that may be
>> > confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an
>> > authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose
>> > it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify
>> > us immediately and then destroy it.
>> >
>> >
>> > —
>> > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
>> > xxxxx@stratus.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>> > %%email.unsub%%
>> >
>>
>> —
>> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@compuware.com
>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
>>
>>
>>
>> The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It
>> contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named
>> addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or
>disclose
>> it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us
>immediately
>> and then destroy it.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>—
>You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@21cn.com
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
>
I am really sorry to see this, that is why I sent an earlier email from
xxxxx@garlic.com. I was sensing something like this is bound to happen.
This is the 2nd time in about month or two. I’m not sure even if I deserve
to say anything, may be OSR is the best candidate, since they are now
taking
responsibility of these 3 msg server.
Would not it be nice to answer someone’s question directly, in this case
Albertro’s question !!.
Why somebody has to show off about (me, I, we do this and that, ). And
finally manage to mount a fight.
I dont think anyone is asking for anyone’s past/present/future experiences
here !!!. Simply if I dont know the answer, I will stay off. And if I know
it, try to help other. I dont think anyone is asking for free advice from
anyone else here. Lot of very very competent people hang out here. So if
anyone thinks (s)he can offer free service, pls get the email from the
party
and do direct email contact.
I’ve seen waisting bandwidth etc, pls run thru the archive and find who is
waisting bandwidth here…
Pls stop this crap, the questioniar is already having enough problem to
solve, dont put salt on it.
-prokash
Prokash,
you are right! I am so sorry!
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@garlic.com
To: NT Developers Interest List
Date: 2002~{Dj~}6~{TB~}5~{HU~} 12:08
Subject: [ntdev] __asm Syntax
>I am really sorry to see this, that is why I sent an earlier email from
>xxxxx@garlic.com. I was sensing something like this is bound to happen.
>
>This is the 2nd time in about month or two. I’m not sure even if I deserve
>to say anything, may be OSR is the best candidate, since they are now
>taking
>responsibility of these 3 msg server.
>
>Would not it be nice to answer someone’s question directly, in this case
>Albertro’s question !!.
>
>Why somebody has to show off about (me, I, we do this and that, ). And
>finally manage to mount a fight.
>
>I dont think anyone is asking for anyone’s past/present/future experiences
>here !!!. Simply if I dont know the answer, I will stay off. And if I know
>it, try to help other. I dont think anyone is asking for free advice from
>anyone else here. Lot of very very competent people hang out here. So if
>anyone thinks (s)he can offer free service, pls get the email from the
>party
>and do direct email contact.
>
>I’ve seen waisting bandwidth etc, pls run thru the archive and find who is
>waisting bandwidth here…
>
>Pls stop this crap, the questioniar is already having enough problem to
>solve, dont put salt on it.
>
>-prokash
>
>
>—
>You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@21cn.com
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
>
Gary, I still want an answer to my question. Why is it that using a
different compiler brings the need for antacid tablets ?
Alberto.
On 4 Jun 2002, at 18:14, Gary G. Little wrote:
I dunno … Really all I am hearing, like so many other times, is Alberto
yelling “I did it MYYYYY WWWWAAAAYYYYYYY!!!” off key and very very badly.I really really really REALLY do NOT care that I it is a pain in the ass to
use GNU or Watcom or Borland or
WhatEver-C. I use Microsoft tools to developed for Microsoft products. It
greatly reduces the need for antacid tablets and I note my doctor is ever so
much more happy with my blood pressure. Anyone that wants to can use any
build environment that causes their heart to go pitter pat. I really do NOT
care. However … please please do waste bandwidth and us other MICROSOFT
DEVELOPERS time by getting one hear and BITCHING how MICROSOFT won;'t let
you build a driver with GNU.Microsoft is like me. They really do not care if you can or cannot developed
a driver suing GNU, and indeed why the bloody hell should they when the
provide a tool that does the job quite well.–
Gary G. Little
xxxxx@broadstor.com
xxxxx@inland.net“Moreira, Alberto” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> >
> > Mark, single source is not the issue. The issue is the dependency on
> > specific tools, the reasons for it. Why ? Give me a good reason to be
> > depending on one specific compiler, linker, builder ? Why is it that a
> build
> > environment must be “supported” ? A system’s runtime should be independent
> > of the tools used at build time. And the interfaces and calling sequences
> > are either well documented and well defined, or they’re not.
> >
> > In my mind, what’s a rat-hole is to rely on a single build front end to
> cure
> > back-end sloppiness.
> >
> > We do have an ANSI standard for the C language, so, compiler compatibility
> > issues should boil down to call sequences and that kind of lower level
> > stuff. Define them well, and compiler dependencies disappear. And here,
> > again, I have a beef if I cannot get a driver working when I turn on the
> > ANSI compatibility switch and frig out anything that’s not bog standard C.
> > Otherwise it’s a mess, eh ? You guys talk so much about quality, yet you
> > forget the most basic cornerstones of safe coding.
> >
> >
> > Alberto.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roddy, Mark [mailto:xxxxx@stratus.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:40 PM
> > To: NT Developers Interest List
> > Subject: [ntdev] Re: __asm Syntax
> >
> >
> > Oddly enough I disagree entirely with the latest opinion from Alberto :-).
> >
> > There is no risk here in a single source for the tools, as we are talking
> > about a single-sourced operating system, the vendor of which explicitly
> > requires that kernel components be built using the specified tools, also
> > provided by the same vendor. I simply am having a hard time imagining the
> > scenario where NT continues as a product but the compilation tools do not,
> > or the vendor refuses to address issues in the compilation tools that
> affect
> > the successful production of OS components. Perhaps the closest to risk
> here
> > would have been a breakup of microsoft that left the compiler tools in
> > msapps rather than in msos. Mr Little’s observation that going down the
> > rat-hole of unsupported build environments seems like a complete waste of
> > time and money is right on target.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Moreira, Alberto [mailto:xxxxx@compuware.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:09 PM
> > > To: NT Developers Interest List
> > > Subject: [ntdev] Re:__asm Syntax
> > >
> > >
> > > Competition is healthy ! I personally believe if one depends
> > > on the tools to be able to make a piece of software, that
> > > alone tells me that the development environment may be
> > > unsound. A kernel-side production component should NOT depend
> > > on particular compiler, linker or builder quirks. And I don’t
> > > see why I should believe in the hands of a Microsoft compiler
> > > any more than I should trust the guys that do GNU, WatCom or
> > > Borland. I also believe that if the OS maintains a well-known
> > > and well-document set of APIs, a healthy driver should build
> > > basically with any compiler and with any linker. If it
> > > doesn’t, the problem isn’t the driver or the compiler or the
> > > linker, the problem is the dependency on a single compiler,
> > > and THAT is what should be weeded out. So, if I cannot build
> > > a healthy driver with the GNU compiler, and I need the DDK
> > > compiler because the DDK takes advantage of some compiler
> > > quirk, that’s a DDK problem that should be addressed and
> > > fixed by Microsoft.
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually, I know that’s utopia given the on-going amoeba
> > > mentality, but my personal take is, I am reluctant in
> > > releasing any piece of software that I cannot build with at
> > > least two different compilers and build environments.
> > > Depending on a single set of tools gives me the jitters.
> > >
> > >
> > > Alberto.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Gary G. Little [mailto:xxxxx@broadstor.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:45 PM
> > > To: NT Developers Interest List
> > > Subject: [ntdev] Re: __asm Syntax
> > >
> > >
> > > No one said you can’t. However, it is not recommended. And if
> > > you do, then basically you are on your own. The recommended
> > > method for building a driver is using the DDK with a
> > > Microsoft compiler, usually at least Professional. XP drivers
> > > are best compiled with the compiler(s) that accompany the XP DDK.
> > >
> > > I guess the point is you can spend your time writing drivers
> > > or trying to get your development system (GNU, WatCom,
> > > Borland) to build a driver that might load. Personally, I
> > > prefer eliminating headaches that are not needed…
> > >
> > > –
> > > Gary G. Little
> > > xxxxx@broadstor.com
> > > xxxxx@inland.net
> > >
> > > “KJK::Hyperion” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> > > >
> > > > At 20.20 03/06/2002, you wrote:
> > > > > > yup! i am using GNU C compiler and the context
> > > > > > is that of GNU__asm syntax.
> > > > >Are you using GNU C compiler for writing NT drivers?!
> > > >
> > > > Why not? You can even write NT itself with GNU C:
> > > >
> > > > http:</http:>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > —
> > > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
> > > xxxxx@compuware.com To unsubscribe send a blank
> > > email to %%email.unsub%%
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named
> > > addressee only. It contains information that may be
> > > confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an
> > > authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose
> > > it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify
> > > us immediately and then destroy it.
> > >
> > >
> > > —
> > > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as:
> > > xxxxx@stratus.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > > %%email.unsub%%
> > >
> >
> > —
> > You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@compuware.com
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
> >
> >
> >
> > The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It
> > contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named
> > addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or
> disclose
> > it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us
> immediately
> > and then destroy it.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> —
> You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@ieee.org
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
>