PureBasic Forums - English

I think it's a good idea. The strange things is that in the french forum, there is an ASM section
Here : ASM French Forum

I would like it very much to have a separate Assembler subforum.
I had already seen it recently that the French forum has one and
had taken a look into it (although my French is not that good... ).

I think it is a great idea, I'm all in favour of having more forum categories in this way - it simplifies and speeds-up forum research and 'gems' are less likely to be 'lost'.

Excellent idea! I have questions already
I am curious about cross platform attempts when integrating ASM code.
Of course, that is what native PB syntax is for, but ...but it is interesting to see the multipliers when processors and O/S

Are polls not enabled anymore?

skywalk wrote:I am curious about cross platform attempts when integrating ASM code.

When no OS specific calls to other procedures are made within ASM code and the cpu and the calling convention are the same, code can be cross platform.
For PureBasic this means Windows, OS X (x86) and Linux 32 bit ASM can be cross platform and Linux and OS X 64 bit ASM can be cross platform if ever PureBasic will have a 64 bit OS X version. If PureBasic 64 bit for Windows and Linux can use the same calling convention, they can also be cross platform.
(if I'm correct of course )

+1 for the idea of an ASM subforum.

+1 for adding the asm forum.

Here are my reasons:

Pb has inline asm capability for a REASON.
Gathers asm threads together so the disinterested can easily avoid them, and the interested can easily focus on them.
Asm programming within PB is still assembler, but it is not directly related to PB. However, a dedicated forum gives PB's asm coders a local place to exchange ideas without "going elsewhere."

I would like to see such a forum added, as well.

I have a lot to learn about programming, but one of the reasons I got PureBasic was because it offered this option if I ever wanted to use it.
At some point in the future I would very much like to learn ASM within the confines of PB, and maybe later in a more general sense.

But remember, this would require the ASM coders of the forum to step up and help us out, with very simple stuff as well. Sometimes that might mean a link to a good tutorial/site, and others it might mean holding hands and drilling information into peoples brains until they "get it", and having lots of redundant discussions.

At the very least, having a special forum for ASM can't do any harm, can it? It's not as if there's a risk attached to it. If it doesn't take off the posts can be merged into the General area.

And anyway, I think it's a good idea. Like Zach, I would like to learn ASM in terms of using it in PB.

Zach wrote: At some point in the future I would very much like to learn ASM within the confines of PB, and maybe later in a more general sense.

If you can use ASM with PB, you can use it in general. ASM isnt very complex and it isnt hard to learn. The problem with ASM is, that you need to think carefully what you want to do. You must think in very small steps and keep the limitations of the CPU in your head. Writing ASM code is easy, you can learn it in a few days. But writing effective code will take some time to learn.

Zach wrote: But remember, this would require the ASM coders of the forum to step up and help us out, with very simple stuff as well. Sometimes that might mean a link to a good tutorial/site, and others it might mean holding hands and drilling information into peoples brains until they "get it"

They allready do that, if someone asks.

Thorium wrote:

Zach wrote: At some point in the future I would very much like to learn ASM within the confines of PB, and maybe later in a more general sense.

If you can use ASM with PB, you can use it in general. [...]

Some people will misunderstand you now and they will try to use x86 instructions for PIC microcontrollers .

DarkDragon wrote:

Thorium wrote:

Zach wrote: At some point in the future I would very much like to learn ASM within the confines of PB, and maybe later in a more general sense.

If you can use ASM with PB, you can use it in general. [...]

Some people will misunderstand you now and they will try to use x86 instructions for PIC microcontrollers .

So, we do need a subforum for that people to ask why the code does not work on their PIC. ^^

One thing that interests me is that what can be done in nice clean assembler code in five lines can often be done in 20 very simple lines with up to 50% + gain in speed. Topics of this nature are quite interesting to discuss and there are quite some references on the net that explain the reasons behind it.

Seriously, in the day-to-day postings to the Purebasic forums, very little is said about inlined asm. If you really want to "Feel the ..PuRe.. Power", that needs to change. For certain applications, without inlined asm at the right time and place, there's a big mushy russet potato stuck in your turbo intake. Dropping to inlined asm can make a speed difference of 10x, as I recently found out. Isn't that worth talking about?

Look at this code : http://purebasic.fr/english/viewtopic.p ... ead#unread
Maybe we could optimise it with asm to show how fast it can be

djes wrote:Look at this code : http://purebasic.fr/english/viewtopic.p ... ead#unread
Maybe we could optimise it with asm to show how fast it can be

Can't do it without an ASM forum

I think it's a good idea to have a section for asm.