.Code: Select all
C:
a = 3 + 4;
b = time(NULL);
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
ASM:
mov ax,cr0
or ax,1
mov cr0,ax
mov ax,0x4F02
mov bx,0x4118
int 0x10
mov dx,3
mov ax,0xFFC00000
mov [ax],dx
invlpg [dx]
). The third one seems to map/unmap the lowest page in the probable page table location using a word instead of a dword, and then invalidates the page containing dx (which would not assemble in 32-bit mode, and be horribly incorrect in 16-bit mode).
Right, and when I ran my test, everyone got the C right and nobody got the ASM right. All this proves is that both of us were using extremely biased and utterly meaningless tests. If you want to spout nonsense, go ahead, but if you want to actually say something meaningful, use a test like the one I suggested (compare using code for the same functions).ASHLEY4 wrote:2. I said when i ran my test, i got the result that all persons tested got 3 of the asm right, none got the C right .
With the expection of contrived or trivial examples, no programming language ever devised is very readable to the nonprogrammer. No calculus proof is very readable to a nonmathematician. No schematic is very readable to a nonengineer. Hmm. I could go on all day stating patently obvious truths, but why?What i will say is C is not very readable to the nonprogrammer.
).Code: Select all
;; Compile-time cons for avoiding dotted-tail notation when
;; quoting data.
(defmacro ct-cons (a b)
(cons (macro-expand a)
(macro-expand b)))
