On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 22:24:56 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: > My problem with always explicitly saying "short" is that it's both > unnecessary and verbose.
Apparently not so "unnecessary" after all, if one really wants to use a short jump, and not some other contraption. > What disassembler are you using here? I erroneously thought it was > NDISASM. I don't use ndisasm for a very trivial reason - I am unable to redirect its output to a file, so I don't really know how other people use it, and I didn't figure out any quick and easy workaround (again, too stupid). The output I pasted before was copied from the NASM listing (-l). And although I do look at the listing carefully, I do not bother decoding the opcodes by hand (too lazy!), I assume that the assembler knows how to encode mnemonics into opcodes - that's his job after all, not mine. Ultimately, whether the code is assembled into a "long, 5-byte form of jump" or "two separate instructions that emulate a jump" is irrelevant to me - in both cases it's still 5 bytes, that all I need to know. > The simple answer is that code size is rarely as important as programmer > convenience. Maybe. But why bother doing assembly then, if not for the control over what machine code is generated at the end? Mateusz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
