Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [tkreuzer] 44508: updates EFLAGS definitions

[Alex Ionescu]

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 <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> 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
> > >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >   
> >  
> >  Best regards,
> >  Alex Ionescu
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
>  
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu