--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 145 ASSEMBLY LANG. Ref: E3100011Date: 02/25/97 From: TED MENKS Time: 09:15am \/To: NICK COONS (Read 2 times) Subj: 486 MOV. Hi Nick, Here we go again! ;-) (Sunday February 23 1997 11:52) Nick Coons to Ted Menks about: 486 MOV. >> You're partly right. >> Both bitwise _and_ logical operations are defined by the same >> terminology. They both handle values of 0 and 1 only, giving results >> that are in the same range: only 0's and 1's! It' just a matter of >> names, nothing more. NC> Not necessarily. In the following BASIC statement will use AND in a NC> logical sense, not bitwise: Well, if we start talking BASIC, we're way off from the ASM-topic, don;t you think? Anyhow, the way in which BASIC handles the LOGICAL operators, is not quite homogenous. Neither is it the same for all BASIC-dialects. NC> IF 1 AND 2 THEN PRINT "Hello, World!" NC> Since 1 is TRUE (BASIC defines TRUE as non-zero), and 2 is TRUE (also NC> non-zero), then it will print "Hello, World!". If it were evaluated NC> bitwise, it would not be true, because 1 AND 2 = 0. With SOME BASIC's this is exactly what happens, but I've also found some of them that would combine the 1 and 2 bitwise, and really find the result to be 0. When such a thing happens, one had to write: IF ( 1 <> 0 ) AND ( 2 <> 0 ) PRINT "Hello Nick, you're off!" ;-))) I've had both kinds of BASIC on hand, the "1 AND 2 = 0" type would be found on the AMSTRAD CPC-range of computers as well as the Sinclairs... Therefor I think BASIC is not quite the best example you could have taken, since it is available in so many different flavors. In ASM however, the BITwise AND the LOGICAL operations are the same thing. 10010110 AND 01100101 would be 00100100, whether you would go about it logically or bitwise. ;-)) See you in the next message, Ted Menks PGPkeyID: 1024/37AF0C35 1997/02/12 Fido : 2:284/412.51 --- THaT's It BBS --- * Origin: Point 51 of Mail Board Son, Eindhoven Holland (FidoNet 2:284/412.51) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 145 ASSEMBLY LANG. Ref: E3100012Date: 02/26/97 From: TED MENKS Time: 11:27am \/To: MARTIN VAN DER ZWAN (Read 2 times) Subj: Assembler NOP Hi Martin, (Sunday February 23 1997 12:04) Martin Van Der Zwan to Denis Boyles about: Assembler NOP MVDZ> Oke', that's no problem then, I still work with a 1Mhz ZX81, btw I MVDZ> think that on a ZX81 several NOPs are also used for dataspace. Yeah, these spaces were quite common in "our days", weren't they? We'd use them for low-level timing, AND for debugging-purposes... Tell those young 80x86 using guys about it, and they tend to disbelieve.... ;-))) BTW: Would you happen to have a 16kB memory-upgrade lying around unused??? My ZX81 is having a little memory-problem... :-( Byebye, Ted Menks PGPkeyID: 1024/37AF0C35 1997/02/12 Fido : 2:284/412.51 --- THaT's It BBS --- * Origin: Point 51 of Mail Board Son, Eindhoven Holland (FidoNet 2:284/412.51) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 145 ASSEMBLY LANG. Ref: E3100013Date: 02/26/97 From: TED MENKS Time: 11:34am \/To: IAN MOOTE (Read 2 times) Subj: 486 MOV. Hi Ian, (Sunday February 23 1997 11:54) Nick Coons to Ian Moote about: 486 MOV. >> "NOT" is a negation. Taken in your context above, you would use NOT for >> a logical operation and NEG for a "bitwise" operation. "NOT" isn't an >> instruction, however, because the only logical operations the processor >> performs are "bitwise" ones (which is why I was wondering about your >> specificity here). NC> I'm not referring to the way the processor handles it, but rather NC> how it is evaluated. Read my response to Ted Menks with the 1 AND 2 NC> example. Yeah, but please also read my reply to Nick. It gets foggier al the time... LOGICAL and BITWISE operation _seem_ to be different, but that's only true for SOME BASIC dialects... In general they're more alike than some people think. Greetinx, Ted Menks PGPkeyID: 1024/37AF0C35 1997/02/12 Fido : 2:284/412.51 --- THaT's It BBS --- * Origin: Point 51 of Mail Board Son, Eindhoven Holland (FidoNet 2:284/412.51) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 145 ASSEMBLY LANG. Ref: E3100014Date: 02/27/97 From: IAN MOOTE Time: 08:19am \/To: JAMES VAHN (Read 2 times) Subj: Moderator -> Is everyone okay with my appointment? There have been no comments -> either way in private mail. I just dropped you an I'net Email which you've probably already received. I'm more than "okay" with it -- I can't think of a better person for the job. Did you ever get any response to your request for a file-access tutorial? Take care. ** Cat Rule #2: Bite hand that won't feed you fast enough. --- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 5 * Origin: The GameBoard BBS - 9056893982/9409 - BurlingtonONCANADA (1:244/506) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 145 ASSEMBLY LANG. Ref: E3100015Date: 02/26/97 From: MIKKO HYVARINEN Time: 04:24pm \/To: DAY BROWN (Read 2 times) Subj: Wait for Vertical Retrac DB> scuse me for buttin in... but would this work in 43 line EGA mode? Yes. It works in any mode supported by EGA/VGA/SVGA cards. DB> I have come across SMOOTH.COM & STYPE.COM [from PC MAG] which would DB> replace the DOS TYPE command, and produce beautiful smooth scrolls on DB> a 25 line dos text screen. Neither would support ansi other than the DB> default color, but it sure made the jerkiness of windoz scolls obvious DB> by comparison. If it would work, could I just replace the B800 with a DB> C800 [if I remember the EGA address correctly] I don't quite understand what you're trying to accomplish here. Could you please elaborate on this, i.e. specify the problem? MH>> mov dx, 3dah MH>> @@loop1: MH>> in al, dx MH>> test al, 8 MH>> jnz @@loop1 MH>> @@loop2: MH>> in al, dx MH>> test al, 8 MH>> jz @@loop2 MH>> MH>> Bit 3 of register 3DAh is set when a vertical retrace... DB> Is there a different register too? Nope. It's always at 3DAh. DB> FYI: I am coding a textmode modem battle strategy game which uses a DB> custom font to replace the foreign letters and junk with symbols used DB> in classic battle maps [e.g. Clausewitz]. You have to use EGA because DB> the VGA does not allow one to use the foreground color in the eighth DB> col of the char bitmaps, which is what Ralf Brown [no relation] told DB> me. Hmmm. You're not actually using EGA, just a screen mode with 8-pixel wide characters instead of the usual 9 pixels. It's still VGA though. DB> If someone knows of an online battle game in real time such that DB> each player may move whether or not his opponent has responded, (as DB> is the case in real battles) lemme know and save me the trouble. this DB> thing is a bear. But if not, then the smoother scroll would be neat. Haven't seen any. Then again, I not at all interested in online games. --- * Origin: By myself but not alone... (2:229/229.5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 145 ASSEMBLY LANG. Ref: E3100016Date: 02/28/97 From: ANDREW KENNEDY Time: 10:33pm \/To: CRAIG HART (Read 2 times) Subj: Hard drive in sleep mode Thanks, my Conner drive must have been a very early IDE drive. --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 145 ASSEMBLY LANG. Ref: E3100017Date: 02/28/97 From: JOE KOSS Time: 09:59pm \/To: JAMES VAHN (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: Detect SoundBlaster's DMA > FS> No. That's not possible :( My program behaves like a > FS> bootsector. Wenn it starts there is no Dos-Environment :( > > You have a bootsector that sounds off though the Soundblaster? > This I would like to see, were you going to post the > code for us? you will notice he said "behaves like a bootsector" sounds to me like he is just using a boot sector to load his sound data and other routines.. "slot and boot" .. been a long time since I've seen one of them --- GEcho 1.02+ * Origin: Midnight Madness <-> Hartford, CT (1:142/8076) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 145 ASSEMBLY LANG. Ref: E3100018Date: 03/01/97 From: BUU HUYNH Time: 01:24am \/To: CHRISTOPHER HANKINSON (Read 2 times) Subj: Own CH> I want to be able to start to make my own programing CH> luangee out of asm, can any one help me. Oh yea how CH> can I edit command.com for dos 6.3 and put a password CH> progrm in it. You are all smart you should now how. You are nothing but a stupid guy. You're not even over 16 years old and you wanted to create your own language??? Have you learn what's COS, SIN, TRIGONOMETRY, LOGARITHMS or any other math skillz???????????? Programming is really math stuff ya know. Can you do graphic coding, can you write a simple program that write to a file and display some message or even a simple "hello, world" program? (you have asked me that last time). Do you know Pascal, C/C++, or Basic?. English: Your programming skillz is not good enough and creating your "own" language is a BIG project! It's not a good idea to "edit command.com" becuase it's copyright by Microsoft. Sorry about this but your msg is getting very something....... --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: The Treehouse Club 613-825-2932/206.130.50.192 (1:163/416) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 145 ASSEMBLY LANG. Ref: E3100019Date: 02/27/97 From: TED MENKS Time: 12:48pm \/To: NICK COONS (Read 2 times) Subj: SHL. Hi Nick, (Monday February 24 1997 22:05) Nick Coons to Ted Menks about: SHL. NC> I don't remember how this thread started, but I think we were NC> discussing speed differences between MUL and SHL (according to the NC> subject line). OK, no more shit-talk... I've been pulling your leg a bit, and now I got kicked in the face ;-))) NC> So going back to that, SHL is much faster than MUL. Ok... I never said that MUL would be faster then SHL, however, I admit that you might have had the impression that I was implying or suggesting so. SHL will be somewhat faster, but you'll only know the difference if your program has to perform this action thousands of times very fast after eachother. If, however, it's done only once or twice, then why NOT use MUL? If it works great, and gets the job done in one simple instruction, it would be preferred over a long list of instructions... (*I* would prefer it, actually) I remember that you were trying to shift a 32-bit word through DX:AX, and I don't remember seeing any other solutions that got it done in ONE single operation... >> NC> But then I might get spoiled :). >> Considering your history, you can't get more spoiled than you >> already are ;-))) NC> Are you trying to say something? Hey, I just hoped you might get the point of me making fun after your funny remark... ;-) Well, what I meant was: You've built up considerable experience, compared to your age. So try to write your current programs on some of the older achines. You'll see what I mean by `being spoiled'. The older machines will all take considerably more time to execute your code... You'll be happy about a slower instruction on your current hardware! ;-))) And as I remembered while I was writing the above paragraph, we were talking about finding a more modern assembler. What is there to get spoiled from a new assembler? It would make your code more readable; your production would increase; you would gain more expertise... These are all positive developments, what is the spoil in all this, considering all that you already have done/seen/experienced??? Hence: you couldn't get more spoiled then you already are! No puns intended, no hard or harsh remarks... just a valid statement on how I see things. CU, Ted Menks PGPkeyID: 1024/37AF0C35 1997/02/12 Fido : 2:284/412.51 --- THaT's It BBS --- * Origin: Point 51 of Mail Board Son, Eindhoven Holland (FidoNet 2:284/412.51) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 145 ASSEMBLY LANG. Ref: E3100020Date: 02/27/97 From: TED MENKS Time: 01:14pm \/To: NICK COONS (Read 2 times) Subj: 486 MOV. Hi Nick, (Monday February 24 1997 22:06) Nick Coons to Ted Menks about: 486 MOV. >> Would you call the BIOS-program a "horrible" piece of code?? NC> I would if it was Phoenix-BIOS :). Right you are! I would even call AWARD BIOS's a "horrible" piece of code ;-) I'm very happy about American Megatrends Inc. (AMI-bios) These are so intuitive. >> Any idea how wait-states (as configured in the BIOS) are created? NC> I don't. Neither do I (not for sure, anyway), but I know for sure that, when writing a BIOS, you can't afford making difficult long-winding loops for very short waiting-periods. If such a period is only as long as two or three clock-cycles, the NOP-instruction would probably be the only thing available to get it done. Any loop would take more time, since you'll have to fill a counter (MOV-instruction), perform a decrement on it (DEC-instruction) and then jump back to the DEC as long as the counter hasn't reached zero (JMP or JR). try to perform a three cycle waiting loop with these operations... You won't succeed. Thus: NOP is a very practical pause to have around, when you're in a hurry! >> When the choice is "one, two or three wait states" you can put your >> mother's nickers at stake (EEEEEK :-)), betting that the ROM program >> executes one, two or three NOP's, or something similar! NC> Possibly...but we don't know. Well, find out! Ask around! Get your hands on an obsolete set of BIOS-chips somewhere and examine the contents, if THaT's what It takes to gather knowledge... You seem to be more familiar with all this then I am: use that to your advantage... ;-))) Mene Sakkhet Ur-Seveh, Ted Menks PGPkeyID: 1024/37AF0C35 1997/02/12 Fido : 2:284/412.51 --- THaT's It BBS --- * Origin: Point 51 of Mail Board Son, Eindhoven Holland (FidoNet 2:284/412.51)