mov or muv

[Rockoon]

I get it. You are right. I think he should be more concerned with variables. Constants could get boring at times.

First it was "stop kidding" and then it was "constants could get boring" ...

Whats next? "the names are longer than the values" ?

You have spent more time defending the use of magic numbers than it would have taken to not use them. You posted the macro up for review and while I immediately had a good idea of what you were trying to do, I could not be sure about the veracity or accuracy of the code itself because I did not know from memory (nor does anyones else) what those magic numbers actually were.

In short, I wouldn't review your macro beyond the magic number issue BECAUSE I WASN'T BORED ENOUGH TO LOOK UP THOSE CLEARLY NOT-INTERESTING MAGIC NUMBERS.

If the magic numbers had been something interesting, like say the fixed point representation of 1/10th, then I might not have cared. But they werent interesting at all, and still arent. They are just there making it hard to read for no good reason.

[usingMasm]

I'd go with '_' in preference to '-' as it doesn't already have a meaning.

Also, be careful you're not trying to patch it up to the point where it becomes just as much 'trouble' to use as simply defining your own variables anyway.

I am getting unmatched block nesting error when arg1 is like [edi] with the following code:

   muv macro arg1:req,arg2:=<eax>
   i equ <arg1>
   ife (OPATTR (arg1)) and 32
   i  substr <arg1>,1,1
   ifidn i,<->
   i substr <arg1>,2
   .data?
   i dword ?
   .code
   endif
   endif

[usingMasm]

I get it. You are right. I think he should be more concerned with variables. Constants could get boring at times.

First it was "stop kidding" and then it was "constants could get boring" ...

Whats next? "the names are longer than the values" ?

You have spent more time defending the use of magic numbers than it would have taken to not use them. You posted the macro up for review and while I immediately had a good idea of what you were trying to do, I could not be sure about the veracity or accuracy of the code itself because I did not know from memory (nor does anyones else) what those magic numbers actually were.

In short, I wouldn't review your macro beyond the magic number issue BECAUSE I WASN'T BORED ENOUGH TO LOOK UP THOSE CLEARLY NOT-INTERESTING MAGIC NUMBERS.

If the magic numbers had been something interesting, like say the fixed point representation of 1/10th, then I might not have cared. But they werent interesting at all, and still arent. They are just there making it hard to read for no good reason.

I love you

[usingMasm]

I'd go with '_' in preference to '-' as it doesn't already have a meaning.

Also, be careful you're not trying to patch it up to the point where it becomes just as much 'trouble' to use as simply defining your own variables anyway.

I am getting unmatched block nesting error when arg1 is like [edi] with the following code:

   muv macro arg1:req,arg2:=<eax>
   i equ <arg1>
   ife (OPATTR (arg1)) and 32
   i  substr <arg1>,1,1
   ifidn i,<->
   i substr <arg1>,2
   .data?
   i dword ?
   .code
   endif
   endif

Solved- "LOCAL i"  had to be declared

[usingMasm]

:U

Here is the finished code. You can use it free of charge at my expense. All rights reserved.  :lol

   muv macro arg1:req,arg2:=<eax>
   LOCAL i
   i equ <arg1>
   ife (OPATTR (arg1)) and 32
   i  substr <arg1>,1,1
   ifidn i,<->
   i substr <arg1>,2
   .data?
   i dword ?
   .code
   else
   .err <Unknown argument: arg1>
   endif
   endif
   if ((OPATTR(i)) and 16) or ((OPATTR(arg2)) and 20)
   mov i,arg2
   else
   push arg2
   pop i
   endif   
   endm

       Thanks to everyone for comments. Particularly Rockoon.  :naughty:

[jj2007]

You should indeed thank Rockoon, he is perfectly right. Try using this set, for use with e.g. oa = (opattr(arg)) AND 127

Code Select Expand

;     Bit Set If...
;     0 References a code label
;     1 Is a memory expression or has a relocatable data label
;     2 Is an immediate expression
;     3 Uses direct memory addressing, i.e. is an absolute memory reference
;     4 Is a register expression
;     5 References no undefined symbols and is without error
;     6 References a stack location (usually a LOCAL variable or parameter)
;     7 References an external label
;     8-10 Language type (0=no type)
               ; 76543210
atMemory = 34 ; 00100010
atImmediate = 36 ; 00100100
atLabel    = 37 ; 10100101
atGlobal = 42 ; 10101010
atRegister = 48 ; 00110000
atLocal    = 98 ; 01100010


Using one-letter expressions as in i equ <arg1> is not a good idea, either.

Note that there is a small difference between Masm and JWasm:

Code Select Expand

mov eax, (opattr([eax+4*eax+20])) and 127
print str$(eax), 13, 10

Result is 34 for JWasm but 42 for Masm (6.15, 9.0 tested).

[usingMasm]

You should indeed thank Rockoon, he is perfectly right. Try using this set, for use with e.g. oa = (opattr(arg)) AND 127

Code Select Expand

;     Bit Set If...
;     0 References a code label
;     1 Is a memory expression or has a relocatable data label
;     2 Is an immediate expression
;     3 Uses direct memory addressing, i.e. is an absolute memory reference
;     4 Is a register expression
;     5 References no undefined symbols and is without error
;     6 References a stack location (usually a LOCAL variable or parameter)
;     7 References an external label
;     8-10 Language type (0=no type)
               ; 76543210
atMemory = 34 ; 00100010
atImmediate = 36 ; 00100100
atLabel    = 37 ; 10100101
atGlobal = 42 ; 10101010
atRegister = 48 ; 00110000
atLocal    = 98 ; 01100010


Using one-letter expressions as in i equ <arg1> is not a good idea, either.

Note that there is a small difference between Masm and JWasm:

Code Select Expand

mov eax, (opattr([eax+4*eax+20])) and 127
print str$(eax), 13, 10

Result is 34 for JWasm but 42 for Masm (6.15, 9.0 tested).

If you guys are able to get over this constant stuff, I wouldn't mind working a bit more on this macro and adding some more features to it so as to put the x86 architecture to shame. If you ask for explanation of something obvious then you are a geek. I am not. I just do it for fun. I explained thoroughly three times the meaning of every MAGICAL number used, but he refused completely to move a single step towards the actual purpose of the thread. Telling me to rename the macro to mymacro1 and at the same time noting it is named descriptively. I can write a book on how geeky that was. anyone ..........naf said.

By the way I haver slightly modified the macro. No, Not renamed it to mymacro1

   muv macro arg1:req,arg2:=<eax>
   LOCAL macroarg1
   macroarg1 equ <arg1>
   ife (OPATTR (arg1)) and 32
   ifidn @SubStr (arg1,1,1),<->
   macroarg1 substr <arg1>,2
   .data?
   align 4
   macroarg1 dword ?
   .code
   else
   .err <"&arg1&" is either a typo or you forgot the leading dash.>
   exitm
   endif
   endif
   if ((OPATTR(macroarg1)) and 16) or ((OPATTR(arg2)) and 20)
   mov macroarg1,arg2
   else
   push arg2
   pop macroarg1
   endif   
   endm

[Rockoon]

If you guys are able to get over this constant stuff, I wouldn't mind working a bit more on this macro and adding some more features to it so as to put the x86 architecture to shame.

...or you could simply make your code more readable and thus maintainable, debuggable, and extendable.. by using named constants.

Even with a reference right next to me, I need to look at the reference, instead of the code... which means that I cannot fluently grok the code.. which means that its a CHORE to do any reasoning about it.

You are insisting that your code be difficult to read, and are then expecting others to WORK HARD in order to review it. Well I say bullshit. I dont come here to work hard, especially not needlessly on the whim of a programmer too stubborn to do the obviously simple, even trivial, effort to make it far less like work for me and others.

If you ask for explanation of something obvious then you are a geek. I am not.

Nobody asked for an explanation. I really dont understand why you dont get it. It isnt that the numbers are hard to look up, its that we shouldn't have to under these circumstances. There are cases where magic numbers are appropriate but this case doesn't even come close. In this case, your stubbornness on the issue is like saying "screw you guys.. I'm making hard, on purpose, and tough shit for you.. and BTW I'm going to call you names now too... you people are geeks"

[usingMasm]

If you guys are able to get over this constant stuff, I wouldn't mind working a bit more on this macro and adding some more features to it so as to put the x86 architecture to shame.

...or you could simply make your code more readable and thus maintainable, debuggable, and extendable.. by using named constants.

Even with a reference right next to me, I need to look at the reference, instead of the code... which means that I cannot fluently grok the code.. which means that its a CHORE to do any reasoning about it.

You are insisting that your code be difficult to read, and are then expecting others to WORK HARD in order to review it. Well I say bullshit. I dont come here to work hard, especially not needlessly on the whim of a programmer too stubborn to do the obviously simple, even trivial, effort to make it far less like work for me and others.

If you ask for explanation of something obvious then you are a geek. I am not.

Nobody asked for an explanation. I really dont understand why you dont get it. It isnt that the numbers are hard to look up, its that we shouldn't have to under these circumstances. There are cases where magic numbers are appropriate but this case doesn't even come close. In this case, your stubbornness on the issue is like saying "screw you guys.. I'm making hard, on purpose, and tough shit for you.. and BTW I'm going to call you names now too... you people are geeks"

:bg :bg :bg :bg

did I mention how much I love you?

OK. once this thing is over and you come up with some good suggestions, so that any doubts on your mastery are removed,  I will take your advice.

[Rockoon]

OK. once this thing is over and you come up with some good suggestions, so that any doubts on your mastery are removed,  I will take your advice.

I gave the most masterful suggestion so far, and you have refused to take that advice.

I fear that you are too inexperienced to realize that us "geeks" as you call us, actually know exactly what we are talking about. You want to continue to clumsily mess around with hard to maintain code when it would take you only a few minutes to make it easy to maintain code that isnt clumsy to work with, with NO SACRIFICES WHAT-SO-EVER unless you consider "clear and concise code" to be a sacrifice over that hack-job you have now.

[usingMasm]

OK. once this thing is over and you come up with some good suggestions, so that any doubts on your mastery are removed,  I will take your advice.

I gave the most masterful suggestion so far, and you have refused to take that advice.

I fear that you are too inexperienced to realize that us "geeks" as you call us, actually know exactly what we are talking about. You want to continue to clumsily mess around with hard to maintain code when it would take you only a few minutes to make it easy to maintain code that isnt clumsy to work with, with NO SACRIFICES WHAT-SO-EVER unless you consider "clear and concise code" to be a sacrifice over that hack-job you have now.

You first.

[usingMasm]

Hi,

I am finally quite happy with the macro. Freedom of movement. use it and forget all the restrictions of the mov instruction.

Advantages:
1 - Automatic detection and handling of memory to memory mov instructions
2 - Inline variable generation
syntax  muv .var,anything Generates a variable called var and moves anything into it.
3 - Inline byte array generation
syntax   muv .var,"this is a silly text"  generates a byte array and moves it's offset into the newly generated variable. You may need to reference the string later. No problem. just add a name for your string at the end.   muv .var,"this is a silly text"silly  . now you can reference the text with the name silly.
This macro uses two sub macros which should also be included.
for bugs xor suggestions post here.

enjoy!

   muv macro arg1:req,arg2:=<eax>
      ifdif @SubStr (arg2,1,1),<">
         ifidn @SubStr (arg1,1,1),<.>
            if ((OPATTR(arg2)) and 20)
                mov setdword (@SubStr (arg1,2)),arg2
            else
               push arg2
               pop setdword (@SubStr (arg1,2))
            endif   
         elseif ((OPATTR(arg1)) and 16) or ((OPATTR(arg2)) and 20)
            mov arg1,arg2
         else
            push arg2
            pop arg1
         endif
      else
      ifidn @SubStr (arg1,1,1),<.>
         mov setdword (@SubStr (arg1,2)),(setstr (arg2))
      else
         mov arg1,(setstr (arg2))
      endif
      endif
   endm


   setstr macro arg
      LOCAL closing_quot,var_name,quoted_text
         quoted_text equ <arg>
         closing_quot instr 2,<arg>,<">
      ifdif %(@SizeStr (arg)),%closing_quot
         var_name substr <arg>,closing_quot+1
         quoted_text substr <arg>,1,closing_quot
      endif
      .data
         align 4
         var_name byte quoted_text,0
      .code
         exitm <offset var_name>
   endm

    setdword macro arg
       .data?
          align 4
          arg dword ?
       .code
          exitm <arg>
    endm