Julienne Walker wrote:
> santosh wrote:
.... snip ...
> > How are we expected to understand your private language. It's bad
> > enough that there are several x86 assemblers with incompatible
> > syntaxes, even with regards to basic instructions, without having to
> > know the "hobby" languages of every Tom, Dick & Harry.
>
> That's not a private language, it's very poorly written C that uses
> non-****table compiler features. As for the "private language" in the
> first post, it was followed up with the same thing in NASM syntax.
Yes, I'm aware of all this.
No offence to a/b, but:
* His C code is nearly unreadable. Over in comp.lang.c, he'd probably
be plonked within minutes.
* Most compilers seem to emit more readable assembly code that his
NASM snippet.
Frankly, his coding style is so wierd that few, if any, are going to
take the time and effort to understand and comment on his code. I don't
want to give wrong advice and it would take me a long time to
understand his code, especially since I'm not even sure what's his
question in the first place.
a/b has been doing this for a year or two now, and, if he wants to have
better responses than the sarcastic ones that he usually gets, he'll
have to write in a more readable C and NASM, ignoring for the moment,
the tons of encrypted "private" code he usually posts as well.
But if you can read and understand his code, then by all means help
him. I'm sure it'll make his day for him. :)
|
