c++

NTDEV
101

No problem.

Good luck,

mm

Mike Kemp wrote:

Thanks, that’s very useful info. This is only at the “what if” stage at
the moment but a lot of what I do is speculate in what is possible for
the next bright idea (and if I’m unlucky, implementing it). I had
misunderstood that asm was out. Now I think it will be possible to
create a BSOD faster than ever before. M

>>>>>>>>>
From: Martin O’Brien
Newsgroups: ntdev
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 4:33 PM
Subject: Re:[ntdev] c++

Definitely on topic, and certainly more so than anything else in this
thread. You can use assembler in the kernel, but on x64 (using
Microsoft tools) you must compile assembler seperately, and can not use
inline assembler in C or C++. That is, assembler must be in it’s own
source file. The WDK comes with x86_32 and x86_64 (and Itanium,
perhaps) versions of ML (MASM). I don’t recall exactly how one does
this with BUILD, but I seem to recall something about placing the file
in an architecture subdirectory and adding to SOURCES, but that may not
be correct. Check the WDK documentation for this.

Good luck,

mm

Mike Kemp wrote:
> I think that it is necessary to build all drivers now for 64 bit as
> well as 32 bit OS, so does this mean excluding asm altogether? Or is
> there an approved MASM or equivalent for kernel use? So far I have
> avoided using assembler but I am now considering whether it is worth
> it to optimise some core routines and/or to use the DSP type
> instructions available in the latest CPUs. Thanks for any views…
> Sorry if this is off topic, but it has been about assemblers for the
> last few days so got me thinking. Mike.
>
>>>>>>
> From: Martin O’Brien
> Newsgroups: ntdev
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:34 PM
> Subject: Re:[ntdev] c++
>
>
> Also, on x64, CL does not support inline assembler, if that’s what he’s
> after.
>
> mm
>
>
> xxxxx@osr.com wrote:
>> [quote]
>> Is asm permitted in Kernel Mode?
>> [/quote]
>>
>> Permitted? Yes. Discouraged and a bad idea, except for certain very
>> specific instances? Also yes.
>>
>> Peter
>> OSR
>>
>>
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>

NTDEV is sponsored by OSR

For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

102

The only disappointing part of the last few postings to this thread has been that I haven’t been able to think of anything sarcastic or even remotely funny to say.

I wouldn’t have expected that in a thread about C++ or even a thread about which brand of assembler is good and which is evil.

Now, please… can we get back to discussing something meaningful, like whether K&R indenting is part of some type of long-planned yet still dormant terrorist plot?

Peter
OSR

103

I have to say that I’ve been sitting here LMAO for the last 10 minutes
at the “turn about is fair play” way this C++ thread has been hijacked.

xxxxx@osr.com wrote:

The only disappointing part of the last few postings to this thread has been that I haven’t been able to think of anything sarcastic or even remotely funny to say.

I wouldn’t have expected that in a thread about C++ or even a thread about which brand of assembler is good and which is evil.

Now, please… can we get back to discussing something meaningful, like whether K&R indenting is part of some type of long-planned yet still dormant terrorist plot?

Peter
OSR

–
Ray
(If you want to reply to me off list, please remove “spamblock.” from my
email address)

104

> The only disappointing part of the last few postings to this thread has been

that I haven’t been able to think of anything sarcastic or even remotely funny to say

As Mark said, hijacking threads becomes a norm here. Apparently, it applies both ways - threads that are meant to be “good” (judging from the title) turn out to be stupid, and, funny enough, the opposite seems to be true as well…

In the very beginning of this thread, one of the posters questioned its very purpose - he said that most people on this list are fed up with reading the same arguments again and again and again. However, this thread somehow managed to grow beyond 100 posts, with vast majority of them made by the “regulars”…

Anton Bassov

105

Ray,

I have to say that I’ve been sitting here LMAO for the last 10 minutes at the
“turn about is fair play” way this C++ thread has been hijacked

We have arrived to the same conclusion simultaneously - you made your post while I was typing mine…

Anton Bassov

106

> In the very beginning of this thread, one of the posters questioned its very

purpose - he said that most people on this list are fed up with reading the same
arguments again and again and again. However, this thread somehow managed to
grow beyond 100 posts, with vast majority of them made by the “regulars”…

Anton Bassov

hi Anton,

that was me. But meanwhile this thread is really funny to read. It developed in such a way, that I have to withdraw my argument above ;-))

– Reinhard

107

wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
>> the operands still moved right to left, which IMHO is contrary to G-d’s intended design…

Hmm… perhaps right to left is G-d’s intended, it’s same direction as in Hebrew :slight_smile:

–PA

108

> Hmm… perhaps right to left is G-d’s intended, it’s same direction as in Hebrew :slight_smile:

…and, which is even more important in context of this discussion, in x86 assembly as it is described in Intel Manuals…

Anton Bassov