hutch is the one who insulted people directly here.
I am merely trying to get my technical facts 'respected'.
But that's impossible with someone who finds his ego more important than this forum and its users.
Posted on 2004-02-17 04:42:56 by Henk-Jan
pff f0dder called hutch's work 'junk' and hutch gave a little poke back...

"sticks and stones" meet "pot and kettle".

Things are impossible to follow due to all the 'noise' that's being generated. Just go count all these posts and the posts actually on topic. Every post I now make is 1 too many..
Posted on 2004-02-17 04:46:33 by Hiroshimator



I never said that, I just said that if you DELIBERATELY do something while you know it's not the right way to do it, and you also know the right way to do it (assuming that the right way and the wrong way are both equally easy to do), well then you're being an idiot, aren't you? It doesn't make sense to me anyway.


Umm yes you did say that ...

For the rest, any asm programmer that deliberately screws up cache-performance is an idiot, that's why all decent asm programmers must agree with me.
Posted on 2004-02-17 04:46:55 by donkey
pff f0dder called hutch's work 'junk' and hutch gave a little poke back...


But f0dder has a point, there are several disadvantages to hutch's macro.
Hutch has no point, because f0dder is an excellent asm programmer, and probably better than hutch anyway. So insulting his skills is completely useless.
Posted on 2004-02-17 04:48:26 by Henk-Jan
Umm yes you did say that ...


No I didn't, re-read my previous post until you understand what I said.
Posted on 2004-02-17 04:49:08 by Henk-Jan
I sometimes have a point to bring across as well but if I punch someone in the face then I can expect them to punch me back.

The divinity nor validity of my point will change that.
Posted on 2004-02-17 04:51:21 by Hiroshimator
Things are impossible to follow due to all the 'noise' that's being generated. Just go count all these posts and the posts actually on topic. Every post I now make is 1 too many..


Then just close the thread. Anyone with some sense will pick up the Intel optimization manual, read about the cache, and see that I am right, and hutch is... full of lies.
There's nothing more to say about the issue.
Same for SGI... Anyone can google for "SGI uses ATi" or something, and find the press-reports about SGI using ATi chips in their systems. And as we know, those chips are also used in PCs and Macs. So there is nothing more to be said. Both cases are absolutely true, and nothing that hutch can ever say will change that.
So you might aswell close this thread.
Posted on 2004-02-17 04:51:38 by Henk-Jan
well, no. I don't wish to close someone else's thread because someone happened to go in "drama mode".

I'll probably have to erase all these stupid posts, but my time is free....
Posted on 2004-02-17 04:54:52 by Hiroshimator
hutch always goes into drama mode when someone points out one of his errors. He craps over every thread in which it happens, you've seen it many times before. Question is: what are you going to do about it?
Posted on 2004-02-17 04:56:59 by Henk-Jan
usually when you wish to avoid a bad reaction (such as an explosion), you take away one of the reagants...
Posted on 2004-02-17 04:58:45 by Hiroshimator
No I didn't, re-read my previous post until you understand what I said.


I have read your posts thanks, and I don't really see much of a point in reading them again. They are anal retentive garbage that basically says that non-optimal coding is stupid. I don't give a flying-f*** about cache performance in the normal course of programming and outside of critical spots I can bet that a good percentage of others don't either. Maybe if I was programming in C or C++ and only occasionally using asm to optimize bits of code that can not be done in those languages it would be of interest to me, but I don't code in anything but asm and frankly a 6 clock call to MessageBoxA does not interest me. And before you go on about that not being the point, that is exactly the point. You use buffers for strings you will manipulate, you use CSTR or whatever it is in MASM for message boxes and the like. And if you are worried about a cache miss before a message box then you are the idiot not anyone else.
Posted on 2004-02-17 04:59:37 by donkey
usually when you wish to avoid a bad reaction (such as an explosion), you take away one of the reagants...


Moral question time: do you take away the person who is right, or the person who is lying deliberately in order to save his ego?
Posted on 2004-02-17 05:01:29 by Henk-Jan
And if you are worried about a cache miss before a message box then you are the idiot not anyone else.


Since when are we discussing messageboxes only?
Posted on 2004-02-17 05:02:48 by Henk-Jan



Moral question time: do you take away the person who is right, or the person who is lying deliberately in order to save his ego?


No morals involved: I just take away whatever reagant itches me. Now please let's go back on topic? Thank you.
Posted on 2004-02-17 05:05:07 by Hiroshimator
isnt there a crusade or some section in this forum apart from main isnt it hiro

why dont you shift this hoopla over there so that all of them who want to fight it can fight it out without annoying the onlookers

:confused: :confused: :confused:
Posted on 2004-02-17 05:05:40 by bluffer
Since when are we discussing messageboxes only?


What the hell else would you do with an inline string ???? You can't write to it, you can't modify it. What did you think that you are going to use it as a buffer ? There is no reason to have an inline string except in direct co-relation to an API call, they are completely useless outside of that context.
Posted on 2004-02-17 05:06:03 by donkey
I'm sorry bluffer, I'll delete this rubbish from this thread later on.
Posted on 2004-02-17 05:06:21 by Hiroshimator
What the hell else would you do with an inline string ???? You can't write to it, you can't modify it. What did you think that you are going to use it as a buffer ? There is no reason to have an inline string except in direct co-relation to an API call, they are completely useless outside of that context.


Oh, I can make my code section writable, no problem... since we are on the topic of promoting "no rules in programming" anyway.
Besides, there are more API calls than just messagebox... and apart from that, you could also call your own functions, or 3rd party libraries... There are many scenarios other than the messagebox you mentioned. Which is why we aren't discussing messageboxes alone.

Can we not stay on topic instead? About how there are cache-issues? You can argue how you may not be interested in cache-issues, but that doesn't make them go away. And I think it is only right to inform people about this kind of disadvantages, if they try to choose what macro they want to use. I don't know why you or hutch get pissed and try to start a flamewar, when obviously this is in the interest of the forum members.
Posted on 2004-02-17 05:09:46 by Henk-Jan
Can we not stay on topic instead? About how there are cache-issues?



Is there a macro for MASM/MASM32 that lets you pass plain strings like this to a function



invoke funcname, "This is a string"




Just like in C?

Also is there anything like a printf or something like that for MASM?


This is the topic by the way... so I am staying on topic, cache issues are not the topic of this thread they are your topic. And oh yes, calling a third party lib or another function is never going to blow your cache to hell :grin:
Posted on 2004-02-17 05:18:22 by donkey
This is the topic by the way... so I am staying on topic, cache issues are not the topic of this thread they are your topic.


Yes they are, they are part of the solution. Now stop trying to start a flamewar against people who try to help others by understanding the consequences of different solutions to their questions.
Posted on 2004-02-17 05:20:58 by Henk-Jan