Printable View
This should be a C++ source file right? I get this error when building, but none when compiling.
Code:--------------------Configuration: Cpp1 - Win32 Debug--------------------
Linking...
LIBCD.lib(crt0.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _main
Debug/Cpp1.exe : fatal error LNK1120: 1 unresolved externals
Error executing link.exe.
Cpp1.exe - 2 error(s), 0 warning(s)
A little farther apart or a lot farther apart?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
Post the code you have.
A lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeRmonkey
I copy pasted the code you posted above.
More logos.
You need an actual entry point for your application. You cannot compile a lonely function into a whole program.
I figured it was something like that. But I still don't know how to go about that. Could you help?
Put that in:
Of course, the resulting app won't do anything.Code:int main()
{
}
This is how, eyeRmonkey:
This will fill the whole array a[] with the value 100.Code:
#include <stdio.h>
inline void Mem_Set_QUAD(void *dest, unsigned int data, int count)
{
_asm
{
mov edi, dest ;edi points to destination memory
mov ecx, count ;number of 32-bit words to move
mov eax, data ;32-bit data
rep stosd ;move data
}
}
int main(void)
{
int a[5] = {0};
Mem_Set_QUAD(a, 100, sizeof(int) * 5);
for (int i = 0; i<5; i++)
printf("%d\n", a[i]);
return 0;
}
Jake, any thoughts on the last 3 logos I posted? I like the blue background better. But I can make the final version with a black background and "Fusion" in a different color for you if you want.
BTW, in the first post, under "Help Support LightFusion" shoud I make link on the images automatically goto the first new post (&goto=newpost) or the first post?
Well, they used to be bigger. Now it's just too tiny. Plus you may wanna get rid of the boarder and the _ [] X buttons.
It's best to make it direct to the first page of this thread. Did you test the code snippet I gave you?
Ok, I'll make the flare bigger.
What do you mean border? What _ [] X buttons? Ahhh. I get it. That is just windows. I took a screen shot of the MDI windows in Photoshop instead of posting 3 individual pictures. Thats what I have been doing the whole time. Ignore the border and stuff. Although, if you want me to post any of those as actualy pictures (in .PNG format) let me know.
Ok, I'll make it to the first page.
Yes, I tested the code snippit. It works, but I still don't understand what it does at all. Well I understand the C++ stuff well enough. The ASM stuff doesn't make sense to me though. I'm too used to OOP to catch on quickly. I am sure I will catch on eventually though.
Well lets make it easy. This function alone will help you understand it better. This is an exponential function:
Ok before I explain what the code does, I'll talk about the registers.Code:
inline int Exponent(int n, int exp)
{
__asm {
mov eax, n ; num
mov ebx, n ; exp
mov ecx, exp ; counter
cmp ecx, 0
je retOne
cmp ecx, 1
je retVal
loopstart:
imul eax, ebx
dec ecx
cmp ecx, 1
jg loopstart
jmp retVal
retOne:
mov eax, 1
retVal:
}
}
eax - accumulator register (commonly used for arithmetic and is the fastest)
ebx - base address register
ecx - counter register
edx - data register
And as you may already know, these are 32 bit registers. You can actually store the data in any register you want pretty much.
Now here is what the code does:
VB Code:
If you wanted to see a VB version of it to help you understand better, then here ya go:
VB Code:
That helped a lot. Thanks Jake!
I started reading 1 .pdf turoial on ASM (for linux - but its almost all the same) the first day we started this before I realized I wouldn't be able to help all that much. That turorial helped me understand processor architecture a little bit and just enough to grasp the register stuff.
Comparing the asm stuff to VB helped a ton. Thanks. :thumb:
PS - :lol: 2^5 = 32 = 32bit :D
Start on chapter 3 in the PDF files in the 16 Bit Dos section to start learning the x86 instruction set. It'll be later on in the chapter. The later chapters will introduce more instructions and some more registers. ;)
I have a few more questions:
1) How are we doing the library again?
2) Is our language interpreted? Or the other way of doing it (native i think)?
3) If it is interpreted then will it be in MASM? If so, then how will we compile it? What I'm getting at is how will we make our IDE/compiler self sufficient if the user has to have visual studio to use it? Or am I missing something?
IDEA: I had a great idea while I was out and about earlier. If the language is interpreted into MASM then I think it would be awesome to give the user an oppourtunity to edit the ASM that we generate before it is sent to the MASM compiler. That way they don't have to do _asm{} every time they want to use ASM. They can let out language do most of the work and they can make any small optimizations they want. This will work especially well if we do eveything inline.
I haven't gotten the book yet so I dunno how it's gonna get compiled. And it's definitely gonna be native, although it would be nice to give the users an option to choose native or p-code, with native as default. The library I was thinking of having built into the exe so we don't to include anything. Kinda what VB has done with it's built in functions, only we are gonna have a hell of a lot more than that.
Ok.
How does native code work. I can't stretch to think of a way it could POSSIBLY work unless interpreted. As you can see, I am new to this area of things.
So am I :(
Give me about a couple days till that darn book finally arrives. In the meantime lets do some research on it on the internet like from Google or something.
Heres an idea:
You know how in C++, you need a library included for stuff like making a windows applictation (window based).
Do it like PHP, and have everything you ever need allready shiped with it. (Of course still allow librarys still). (You guys are probably allready going to do that, but just wanted to get my thoughts in :p.)
There was someone else who created a RAD for C++ here at VBF, maybe you should go have a talk with him?
Also, I know this is going to sound stupid, but its a saying that my programming teacher told us and it just stuck with me ever since she told us it. KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. You should keep that in mind when your making the syntax for LightFusion.
Offtopic:
That saying allways repeats itself in my mind when I'm programming. If I start to do something complicated, then that saying hits me, I figure out a longer (yet easier) way to do what I was doing.
I hope you guys really take this off, I know Ill be one of the first people using it :).
My two cents.
Jake, so you don't know what native code is either? You just know its faster. Fair enough.
Great to have your support killdragon and thanks for your input.
Looks good. But I still don't get what native code IS. I get what interpreted is because I get what ASM is. I just don't see how you can bypass assmebly... but it is obviously possible because how else would there be ASM compilers.
Sweet looking new logos. You like Jake?
pretty colors.....
Much better logo timeshifter. Thanks for shrinking it. :) Maybe I should make ours the same size so they can go in a row. :)
lol... I get to have one in my sig by default since I pretty much started the whole thing...
I would help a bit more, but i'm kinda caught up with MiniShop Pro...
Each ASM opcode (one line) assembles to at least one byte of machine code. As machine code is executed it goes into the CPU pipeline (exactly how depends on the CPU itself) and is executed depending on the byte values.
You don't "bypass" machine code. ASM and machine code are pretty much equivalent. Higher level languages compile to ASM and then assemble into machine code.
I like the idea of editing the ASM produced but I might point out the difference between interpreting and compiling. Compiling means making a native code EXE, or ASM listing, out of higher level source code. Interpreting means processing each higher level instruction as it is read while the program is running. That requires an interpreter.
Ok, then what is the difference between interepreted code and native code?Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Another comment, this time on Jake's ASM explanation. Very nice work :thumb: just the last line where you said:
Just to clarify, in most calling conventions the return value is passed in the eax register. So the VC++ compiler is not actually putting in a "return eax;" statement for you. That would be likeQuote:
'And the function written in C++ automatically returns the value of eax.
which is silly... :) Because we were using eax in that code, you are modifiying the return value as you go along, and then when the funciton returns the value in eax is read as the return value. In your VB translation that would mean, instead of an "eax" variable, you use "Exponent".Code:mov eax, eax
Interpreted means your higher level (HL) source is read as the program executes and the interpreter executes instructions based on the HL source. The native code is all in the interpreter and conditionally executed.Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeRmonkey
I could also mention .NET IL (Intermediate Language). .NET apps are compiled into IL and IL is not interpreted. It is compiled (and optimised to an extent) into machine code by the JIT (Just-In-Time) compiler when you run the program.
OOohh penagate. I'm impressed. Someone's quoting my "Programming in the .NET Environment" book very well :p
Well, not word for word, but still, good to know you understand it. Although, I did always assume IL was interpreted. My bad..
chem
I edited it, missed the word "compiler" after JIT. Maybe now it is word for word :)
(Seems like there were a lot of posts while I was asleep. I missed a few when I was replying before, so...)
P-Code is evil... I can't think of any situation where you'd want to use it. Besides, it is a Microsoft invention. It is not a standard.
About things like __asm{}. The double underscores indicate a compiler extension. It is not part of the language standard. If we want to make inline ASM part of the language standard then it should be asm{}. But then we remove platform independence by targetting the x86 platform.
Also, we need to draw up a definitive document detailing the language itself, before we start on things like the IDE, and logos, etc. I know you guys are eager to do that, but without a language to built the product on then we don't really have much. Once we've sorted the concepts, and then the finer details of the language, then concentrate on a compiler. Even if it is just a command line tool to start with.
Good thinking. I only suggested it because I'm not actually doing anything with the compiler.
The reason I suggested converting to MASM is because I've run a MASM compiled program on many a different PC, without fail. I mean, there could have been some underlying memory issues which have buggered the PC's now :p but other than that, they ran fine.
chem
Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Leave the syntax writing to me. I'm working on the basic programming concepts now. ;)
Jacob:
How exactly do you plan on wrapping DirectX into the language? "Header" files with calls and stuff to the DX libs?
chem
When can we view this document with the concepts? I'm dieing to see how you guys are going about this :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
I might get my mum to pick up a Compiler Construction book from her University for free :eek:
chem
DirectX will come later. Let's focus on one thing at a time here ;)
I need some ideas for a Not operator that is not ! or <>. A minimum of one character is ideal. Anyone up for ideas.
Also I'm using ? as the Or operator cause it makes sense once you think about it.
What's wrong with ! ?
Do you just want it different from C? :D
Personally I see nothing wrong with and, or, not etc.
Well if it's gonna be a different language, might as well make a few changes right? I may stick with ! but I prefer some ideas for something different. Who knows, we might run into the perfect operator.
OK, let's forget all other languages exist and start from scratch.
What would be most logical?
And .... well, &.
Equals .... =
Assignment .... -> or <-
Or .... /
Not .... equals with a slash through it, but that's a bit hard to type :D
But, / is used for division, so that rules that out. So Or will have to be something else.
Wrong. This unnecessarily makes learning the language harder, thus making adaption worse. The closer you get to an existing language, the better. Doing that will also show you if you're merely reinventing a language or actually doing something innovative.Quote:
Well if it's gonna be a different language, might as well make a few changes right?
Here's what I got so far:
I'm thinking the backslash can be the Not operator instead. But it's just an idea.Code:
= equals c = a
+ add c = a + b c += a
- subtract c = a - b c -= a
* multiply c = a * b c *= a
/ divide c = a / b c /= a
% remainder c = a % b c %= a
& and c = a & b c &= a
? or c = a ? b c ?= a (Makes sense to use ? as or)
! not c = ! a
xor
And Cornbee, it always takes time for someone to learn a new language. Only this language we are creating will make it easy for someone to learn, not just make C++ gurus easy to switch over, but everybody. It's not gonna look completely like C++.
No separate assignment/equality operators?
Well I was thinking of using the same operators to do Bitwise comparisons as well as logical operators. Kinda like how VB had it to make it easier to use.
Yeah, then you relinquish control over what is going on to the compiler. In other words, you can't control whether it is an And or a compare.
I know....
?Code:& ....... Bitwise AND
&& ...... Logical AND
and ..... Compiler decides
Should the Bitshifting operators be the same as C++? Or should we use functions?
The compiler will know when we program it to tell the difference.
<< or shl; >> or shr. Functions go in the library, operators in the core syntax. I think bitshifting deserves an operator.
The general operands universally make sense... that's why they're similar in almost all languages. It'd probably be a serious turn-off if you removed them and replaced them by strange symbols...
Just my two cents, though.
I know it will know, but you don't have control over it. Sometimes in VB you want to do a combine bitwise and logical AND's and you can't.
Yeah why not. I think it deserves an operator as well.
Does everyone agree that Or should be the ? operator? It makes sense once you think about it.
C# operators.
There's a few more to deal with yet.
I just don't think that the ? symbol has anything to do with combination. It should be some sort of conditional operator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
Cause you are use to it as being a C operator. Well in my opinion, looking at the symbol makes me think "Is this true Or is this true?" I mean we can't have all the C operators the same as LightFusion can we?