On 2009-12-11, at 8:37 PM, Timo Kreuzer wrote: > Relax, dude ;-P > > The changes I made were the following: > 1.) removed EFLAGS_ZERO and EFLAG_SIGN as they are part of winddk. Any > reason to have them in the NDK, too?
1) Assembly code can't access winddk.h 2) They are in ks386.inc so they must be in asm.h (PSDK compat) > 2.) added EFLAGS_PF, EFLAGS_AF, EFLAGS_SF, EFLAGS_OF, EFLAGS_IOPL_MASK, > EFLAGS_RF, EFLAGS_ID just for completeness. Problem is these aren't in ks386.inc -- hence we lose PSDK compat. Put them in an internal ntoskrnl header or something. > 3.) renamed EFLAGS_V86_MASK to EFLAGS_VM, as this is what it is in long > mode (there is no V86 mode) Again, same issue. > > The rest is still the same, although these definitions don't match > ksasm64.inc That's the problem! > > Anyway, there's probably room for improvements. For example some > definitions are duplicated in asm.h and ketypes.h > I also wonder if there is any chance to make our assembly stuff > MSVC/MASM compatible and if we can still use #defines. The real problem is asm.h needs to be 100% compatible with ks386.inc and moved to include/psdk. Anything that was used in asm.h and is not in ks386.inc needs to go to some internal header. > > Further constructive suggestions appreciated. Same arguments apply for amd64/asm.h -- needs to match ksamd.inc > > Regards, > Timo > > > Alex Ionescu wrote: >> I hope you can read English. >> >> You no-devs are not supposed to challenge a coding change argument made by >> the person who wrote the code with the argument being "I have no idea what >> I'm talking about but you're wrong about how your own code should look like" >> and state "*we* should do this instead." >> >> >> On 2009-12-11, at 3:57 PM, Javier Agustěn Fernŕndez Arroyo wrote: >> >> >>> i hope you dont mean we no-devs cant discuss stuff and even learn from you >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Alex Ionescu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Ergo, we may define them to correctly reflect the EFLAGS register. >>>> >>> Who is "WE"? You're not even a DEV for this project! >>> >>> >>>> However, but I think Alex is right that the compatible identifiers >>>> should be retained. >>>> EFLAG_SIGN and EFLAG_ZERO are used to compare flags in AH after LAHF, >>>> and should be retained verbatim, since they are public (in NTDDK.H). >>>> As for any MS EFLAGS_xx definitions, I'm not privvy and can't say. >>>> >>> Then shut up and don't post completely USELESS and wrong information. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ros-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>> >> >> Best regards, >> Alex Ionescu >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ros-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev Best regards, Alex Ionescu _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
