My Program made in 100% ASM has exactly....Win 95 - 98 ....... P200......... 96 MEG of RAM

It's nothing more than One Big A$$ NumberCrusher

1000 Regular Edit Boxes (Hidden)
+313 Regular Edit Boxes (When Need)
+1 RichEdit with 11 more RichEdit Child EditBoxes
10 Regular Buttons
All one REAL window with Wonderfully written code that all came from the best of the Board and Hutch

Link: warning LNK4089: all references to "SHELL32.dll" discarded by /OPT:REF
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY MASM WOULD COME LIKE THIS... THERE IS NO REASON THAT I CAN SEE....


But still the darn thing comply and make an execution able. But than when I try to fire it up I get "This program has performed an illegal operation" Knock off a few hundred KB and ALL is WELL

I MAX OUT QEditor and MASM . QEditor only need another 250000000byte - 500000000byte but MASM to me Have no Execute For All of This. Could someone tell me why MASM don't want to make a MEG BYTE or Better Executionable. If I remove 200KB it will comply as usually but when i add new code or **EVEN COPY A BIG BLOCK OF PERFECTLY RUNNING SURE CODE** MASM will not GO. and now I think if MASM can't or want do it.... Which ONE WILL... Problem none of them, what do you think or know for sure ...

I'm sure you can understand that I made no mistakes. I been trying to figure out why for over 3 weeks now... Up and Down Back and Back...

MORE FACTS:

500000000 BYTE asmfile read by editor
4.76 MB asmfile as on hard disk
1.94 MB object file
1 MEG FILE The Executionable

Where are the other 24 byte that makes it a true Megabyte?

After all of the crazy, mis-reporting me as a bad executive and whatnots, this is the worse of it all... Maybe to come all of this way to only find out that ASSEMBLER'S Runs of of Juice...

Now I not suprize anymore. I know i saw it ALL..

ASSEMBLER'S they were all written With Windows or For Windows and Windows biggest editor don't hold enough power to go beyond much as it is ...

Here is an perfect example, for two year i worked hard to see to it that all is perfectly coded the best way possible... All of an sudden it don't work, But when I RE-INSTALL WINDOWS..... IT WORKS PERFECTLY FOREVER and a DAY.

I saw this Bull Jive at lease twice not to mession even more strange things that should have never happened....And i only got Win95....THANK GOD....Now i really don't like ASM anymore, * I LOVE IT* and near ready to kick butt and make it BIGGGGG --- RE just because i want to SEE..c

I got another 200KB's to go.... I don't know what to think anymore... One thing for sure i am tired of pointing the finger at the worng one Was it Windwow or Masm ... I know it's not me or my equipment. It's enought to make a blind man say "I saw That"
Posted on 2002-10-22 07:01:40 by cmax
Link: warning LNK4089: all references to "GDI32.dll" discarded by /OPT:REF
Link: warning LNK4089: all references to "SHELL32.dll" discarded by /OPT:REF
Link: warning LNK4089: all references to "COMDLG32.dll" discarded by /OPT:REF


..means you include the incs and libs for these dlls but don't call any of their functions... Generally you can ignore this message.

For the rest :) I don't have a clue what this is all about :tongue:
Posted on 2002-10-22 07:24:02 by JimmyClif
PS: I had once a 50MB exe made w/ Masm.

5 lines of code and a 50 MB wav file :stupid:
Posted on 2002-10-22 08:12:03 by JimmyClif
Impressive work you have cmax, I don't even think i can reach 5mb(or close to it) in asm codes.
Posted on 2002-10-22 08:20:54 by roticv
"500000000 BYTE asmfile read by editor". ~500 megs eh?
The rest is just incomprehensible as usual ;). 4.76MB source
file? Fucksake, ever heard about modularity? 1000 hidden
editboxes? 313 regular editboxes? Wtf are you doing?
Posted on 2002-10-22 10:38:36 by f0dder

1000 hidden
editboxes? 313 regular editboxes? Wtf are you doing?


Spreadsheet control? :grin:



cmax didnt we tell you last time you shouldnt post here while being drunk? ;)
Posted on 2002-10-22 10:41:14 by bazik

Spreadsheet control?

Bwahahaahaahaa :P


cmax didnt we tell you last time you shouldnt post here while being drunk?

Isn't that well beyond drunk? crack? :)
Posted on 2002-10-22 10:44:32 by f0dder
Probably,cmax is working very hard to develop a weapon which will destroy Saddam! :cool:

Regards,

Vortex
Posted on 2002-10-22 13:18:20 by Vortex

Probably,cmax is working very hard to develop a weapon which will destroy Saddam! :cool:


But why did he test this nerve poison on himself then?
Posted on 2002-10-22 13:32:30 by bazik



But why did he test this nerve poison on himself then?


Don't worry Bazik, cmax will be not contaminated by the gas, he has his mask to protect himself! :cool:

Regards,

Vortex
Posted on 2002-10-22 13:42:51 by Vortex



Don't worry Bazik, cmax will be not contaminated by the gas, he has his mask to protect himself! :cool:



When I reread his first post again, I have no doubts that he already got contaiminated :grin:
Posted on 2002-10-22 14:12:05 by bazik
Talk about addiction... I just found out that I'm a webaholic. I'm joining one of these groups concerning this addiction...

Are You?

http://www.geocities.com/buddychai/Addicted/1Addiction.html

http://www.geocities.com/buddychai/Addicted/7Webaholic.html

I have more links but I have to stop posting before I can't control myself. :grin:
Posted on 2002-10-22 14:50:20 by stryker
cmax, you could try breaking the source code into smaller files. If this doesn't solve the problem then you'll have to split the project into separate object files. If that doesn't solve the problem then it is something else. It is good to hear of your progress. I'm very curious to see what your creative mind has constructed!
Posted on 2002-10-22 14:55:21 by bitRAKE
o it's really nothing bitRAKE . I have a contract to keep track Lottery Numbers for 4 mid-west states and have did that the past 20 years. Before i got into programing i use to do it all with WP8 marcos. I like WordPerfect... It really beat the heck out of Word when it come to macros and controls.

So now that i got my ASM main project in order ( but much, much more need to be learned ) I decided to write my own number crucher for those state Lottery. I know i could have done it smaller but you know me I got to put everything in a one page file just to prove that ASM is a monster. It is sooooooo Butiful to see it in action after its all done.

I must be getting good now because i did it all in less than 3 weeks. Not near but prefect as it has to be. All Select cut paste API's

Anyway, It taught me a lot about Windows Edit Controls and what it can really handle... After 1200 or so edit boxes the next one you create WINDOWS will never again let you SetWindowText....... Yes this all is a fact but who can ask for MORE other than ME....BTW but every thing else for it will work ok, but not SetWindowText...

I have not gotten to the exact point but i see it ALL before my eyes everyday...

I plan to do it using all in te REGISTER one day but for now ( and for testing ) it's fun as hell to see all the numbers fly 500 times faster than WP, WORD and DataBASE...Can you imageing when it go to REG.... 5000 TIMES FASTER.. can you imagine.

Also for the record, INVOKE beats the heck out of ... Push ..Push... Call ...by 300%- 700% when the tough get going. ... I saw it all playing with 20 years worth of numbers for all type digits ....

But really all state Lottery is dame near dead since 1999.... So i used all of that free time i had since than to explore programming .....

What's up all

That's wtf i do....and have been during that most of my life.

Window is a trip when you put all that shit i worte one it... When it get supicious and go nuts on me i usually find a way to go under it most of the time... But it stop me here.... many loops out of this world and his own API and all it say is DON'T F**k WITH ME....

Love you Guys

Don't mean to be but too ____ but i just need to let everyone see the point that i have founded doing stuff the long way... WAVE files is differce.... F**K with the API with masive coding than see for yourself.


I do plan to break it ALL down to that guy who do everything with the reg someday.

PS: I beleive that SendMessage and MoveWindow lose footing somewhere in it own API and even with weak stuff those two api is the worse on the system itself, eatting up ALL the MEMORY- and a few other small things but i can't think of them right now....
Posted on 2002-10-22 19:11:52 by cmax
You know cmax, you could have done 1300 EditWindow's this way too...

HandleArray dd 1500 dup (?)
Counter dd 1313

mov ebx, offset HandleArray
sub ebx, 4
mov Counter, 1313
mov EditWindowIDNumber, 1000

A1:
push SomeMoreStuff
push SomeMoreStuff2
push SomeMoreStuff3
push EditWindowIDNumber
push Idunno
push Styles
push Offset EditWindowName
push NULL
call CreateWindow
add ebx, 4
mov ,eax
inc EditWindowIDNumber
dec Counter
jnz A1

And this would have got you 1313 EditWindows starting at ID number 1000 until 2313

No need for copy pasting 1300 lines and changing each one individually... (or did I understand you wrong?)

:confused:
Posted on 2002-10-22 19:26:43 by JimmyClif
cmax,

Just give some thought to this idea, you can only ever edit one piece of text at a time so there is no purpose in having so many edit controls and it will make your app a lot bigger and a lot slower by having so many controls.

What I have generally seen done is that the data is displayed by various means, even something like formatted TextOut() display and you place an edit control dynamically over the part you wish to edit.

You can edit it and if you write the code correctly, the value is updated and then redisplayed. It means you will probably keep an array of values as they can be individually modified easily enough but the general idea is to keep down the number of controls for normal performance reasons.

Regards,

hutch@movsd.com
Posted on 2002-10-22 19:38:39 by hutch--
Hey JimmyClif,

I will be looking into all of the hints that you gave me in the pass until now. I know what you mean finally. And i not sure if you mis-understood.

But your code may solve the 1000 box problem that i don't need to see the context running anyway. The other boxes must be seen on screen for now because it's fun or funny to see it all in action. All in Memory will get the job done in no time, but im not worry about that right now. This is for the work i do an not my main ASM which i want to get back to.


Hello hutch

TextOut sound like dos. I got to get into things more but for now the point is where is my 24 byte and why do Assemblers stop at a One MB execution able?

I like to e-mail it ALL to you or send it to you on a floppy. Numbers crusher this size is not the kind of thing that you post i don't think. I just need to know how to do it in detail, i don't know how to do it over the web. Please e-mail me or something so i know how.

It will be two + size the Crusher.asm files and also a few small files to use so that you can see it run. From there you will see my point and also see other Windows type limits. I am not looking for improvements... I like it the way it is. I just want more 1.5meg asm EXECUTIVE :) in your hands it's all good.

Thanks

Posted on 2002-10-22 22:27:04 by cmax
well cmax, the thing you just did is what programmers try to avoid most because of its inefficiency (if not in performance then at least in change control)

yes, when you only have, say < 7 of those controls then you could gain some speed with some routines by not encapsulating them in 1 routine that sets up all values (although already highly doubtful and rare) but you lose on the ground of ease of use and ease of changing your source code.


suppose you have



routine1:
basic init1
fill with text("hallo world")

routine2:
basic init2
fill with text("hallo world")

routine3:
basic init3
fill with text("hallo world")

you can already clearly see that they are redundant, you could write them like this:
routinex(x):
basic initx
fill with text("hallo world")


and only have 1 routine to call but more importantly optimize, troubleshoot, change... all those things programmers hate to do when things get splattered over more than 1 similar routine since it's a source of many new bugs.

It will also save you big time on size consumed on disk and in memory, which will make your application start faster (while possibly being able to run faster due to less or no paging compared to one with thousands of standalone redundant routines)

that's what f0dder meant with modular coding: you make your code a little toolbox that you don't duplicate but that you use everytime its functionality is needed. Like a plumber only carries 1 version of each of his tools.
Posted on 2002-10-23 03:29:07 by Hiroshimator
cmax,
are you aware that Win95 and Win98 both have a limit on the amount of graphic resources you can use, and with over a thousand edit boxes i would say you are probably blasting through that limit. I am not sure if ME suffers from the same problem.
Posted on 2002-10-23 06:27:49 by sluggy
When I clicked on the thread topic I thought you were doing some benchmarking :)
Posted on 2002-10-23 11:22:09 by pixelwise