00:02:43 b_jonas: how about 239 subs, named 01,02...EE,EF ? 00:03:35 therefore, easier to make a stack with 00:17:15 `` printf %s 11101001011110101100010111111100 | crc32 /dev/stdin 00:17:17 badc0c0a 00:20:27 lol 00:20:51 -!- imode2 has joined. 00:27:55 (It was a fun little exercise: start with a desired CRC32 value, then compute that string of 0s and 1s) 00:28:44 And don't use brute force; that's feasible, but boring. :) 00:29:50 this is why crc32 is not a cryptographic hash 00:30:53 Nor CRC64, nor CRC128 if that exists. 00:31:42 -!- imode2 has quit (Quit: Leaving). 00:37:44 so, not yet in repo, but the subroutines are literally named 01 through EF now 00:41:38 now it's in the repo 00:50:28 int-e: there's an IOCCC entry that modifies a file so that it contains its crc checksum formatted to text, I think 00:50:42 but yes, it's linear 00:52:34 Lykaina: I don't see why that would be better that just using absolute addresses inside those subroutines. the point of a stack would be that (a) it would let you use less memory than you need for all subs, (b) pass arguments so you can call the same subroutine from multiple call sites easily, (c) allow recursion. you might not care about all of that, in which case you just put the local variables of 00:52:40 each of the subroutines to separate memory areas 00:53:42 but even then my main complaint is that since your interpreter restricts memory access to the other parts of the memory, it's hard to pass arguments or return values to other subroutines, you have to use the global variables for it, in which case why do you not just put everything in global variables and get rid of the address translation instead? 00:54:15 Lykaina: however, if you want to limit the names of the subroutines to make storing the table of their code addresses simpler, that I could understand, but it is sort of restrictive 00:54:31 would just force the bookkeeping on the programmer 00:55:22 anyway, I don't know what you want to do with the interpreter, and you'll have to decide that 00:55:29 i'll get rid of the address translation and make everything global 00:55:40 int-e: right, it's a linear checksum, so brute force is way overkill 00:59:59 linear reminds me, https://www.perlmonks.com/?node_id=940327 01:04:05 that one is also a problem that's linear over the GF(2) field, you may try to solve it 01:04:24 b_jonas: better? 01:04:37 brb gotta eat 01:06:39 cpressey: ^ puzzle thingy, you might be interested as well 01:07:30 Lykaina: what is better? 01:09:11 fizzie: So according to the musl people, there's pretty much no cross-libc ABI. 01:09:36 If you compile your program with musl's crt.o it'll work with musl's ld.so/libc, and the same for glibc. 01:09:43 This seems like a bizarro situation to me. 01:10:08 Surely there *is* a de facto ABI, which is whatever programs compiled with gcc and its crt.o do. 01:10:27 -!- Sgeo__ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 01:10:38 But there are a lot of compatiblity issues across even versions of glibc, so who knows what that means. 01:10:51 -!- Sgeo__ has joined. 01:11:09 In practice I need to emulate what glibc's crt.o does, I guess. Which is calling __libc_start_main with rdx as an argument. 01:11:40 Note that Go *doesn't* call libc_start_main, so maybe Go programs only work by accident, since libc doesn't get to do its initialization in the usual way. 01:15:38 That's odd. 01:16:08 I know there's definitely a nonzero amount of things that go wrong if you write a program that just starts at _start but still links with (g)libc and calls into it. 01:16:15 I don't remember specific examples, but there were some. 01:16:52 -!- xkapastel has quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity). 01:17:14 "like exposing the list of TLS-providing modules, synchronizing changes to it, providing dl_iterate_phdr (access to unwind information for all libraries present), providing dlopen/dlsym/etc," 01:20:10 b_jonas: git commit -a -m "Removed a broken local addressing scheme." 01:22:49 -!- adu has quit (Quit: adu). 01:27:32 Go was in the top 10 (just barely, on spot 10) in the IEEE Spectrum's 2019 programming language popularity contest update. 01:29:17 -!- tromp has joined. 01:31:35 -!- tromp_ has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds). 01:33:23 fizzie: I was happier about go when I didn't know that it resorted to reflection for elementary things like sorting. 01:35:00 int-e: You can also use code generation. 01:35:34 Yay. C++ templates but without official language support. 01:35:48 `grwp negativ 01:35:49 absolute value:The absolute value of a number, also known as its cosign, is its distance from zero regardless of direction. It shouldn't be negative, but Sgeo is trying to break maths. 01:35:54 I think there is some official language support? 01:36:46 sounds like Sgeo 01:36:47 Is there now? I thought not... I thought it was some kind of 3rd party preprocessor. Maybe I'm wrong. 01:37:39 There's something called "go generate". 01:37:46 Maybe that's official tool support, not language support. 01:38:31 'Generate runs commands described by directives within existing files.' 01:39:42 I'd use Go except I don't want garbage collection. 01:40:41 is go an esolang? 01:40:58 Heh. 01:41:20 did you write it? 01:41:24 Lykaina: surprisingly we often end up discussing mainstream languages here as well. 01:41:33 oh 01:41:41 It's Google's language called "Go". 01:43:33 Did you learn programming in 6502 or in Glulx at all? Or some other one? 01:44:05 IIRC, Sgeo and I used to play Go between classes at uni. 01:44:37 Do you think assemblers should generate instructions like "mov $60, %eax" when you type "mov $60, %rax"? 01:44:56 The bytes generated are already ambiguous and the assembler has to pick an encoding. 01:45:47 Or is there an observable difference between moving a 32-bit immediate into eax and rax? 01:46:23 I don't know a lot about modern x86 assembly 01:46:38 So, I don't know what the encoding is. 01:46:56 shachaf: I'd be worried about operand size mismatches and resulting pipeline stalls, but I don't know whether that worry is justified. 01:47:26 Hmm, what do you mean? 01:48:27 At least in 6502, the standard syntax does not have a difference for zero page or absolute, I think, and that affects the operand size and the speed too. But NESASM/MagicKit requires < to indicate zero page addressing, which I think is better than the standard syntax. 01:48:47 shachaf: If you load eax and then use rax, does that confuse the processor? Or doesn't it because it always deals with the whole 64 bit register anyway? 01:49:46 shachaf: I recall that loading ax and then using eax caused pipeline stalls in earlier processors. Of course there the story was different; loading ax would preserve the top half of eax. 01:49:48 I see. You're thinking maybe something just looks at the instruction operand size and not the effect of the instruction. 01:50:25 I think loading 32-bit immediates into 64-bit registers is such a common idiom that I'd be surprised. But maybe there are effects in other cases. 01:50:36 I think modern x86 is too confusing, and that MMIX is better. 01:50:41 Also, loading ax *still* preserves the top 3/4 of rax, I found out in here the other day. 01:50:57 zzo38: I'd happily use a MMIX processor if you sent me one in the mail. 01:51:42 shachaf: Yeah it's probably fine... the fact that loading a 32 bit register clears the upper half cures the reason for those stalls (namely, that outputs of two instructions would potentially have to be merged). 01:51:53 (Old x86 also is less messy than modern x86, I think.) 01:52:08 `` llvm-mc 01:52:10 /hackenv/bin/`: line 5: llvm-mc: command not found 01:53:41 Does HackEso have a convenient way to type instructions and see what they assemble to, or type machine code and see what it disassembles to? 01:53:53 gtg 01:54:24 before i accidently say something someone doesn't want me to 01:54:30 -!- Lykaina has quit (Quit: leaving). 01:54:49 shachaf: Anyway. I don't know. For $60 I'd hope for a mov imm8, r/m64 operation, I think, and then realize that that doesn't exist, then spend the rest of the day wondering why that is. 01:56:12 Oh boy. You're using Intel names with AT&T order. 01:56:47 More productively, what do existing compilers/assemblers (llvm, gcc, as) do the processor software optimization manuals have anything to say on that? 01:57:52 oh, nice contraction. s/do the/do, and what do/ 01:58:21 shachaf: I have no excuse, but the fact that an immediate was involved saves me :P 02:00:46 `` echo 'int foo() { return 60; }' | gcc -O2 -c -x c -o /tmp/test.o - && objdump -d /tmp/test.o | grep -P '^ *\d+:' 02:00:49 0:b8 3c 00 00 00 mov $0x3c,%eax \ 5:c3 retq 02:02:30 I'm looking at the Intel optimization guide. 02:02:36 "12.2.2 Use Extra Registers to Reduce Register Pressure" 02:02:38 Thintel. 02:02:52 DEEP 02:03:40 didn't sparc attempt to solve register pressure by doing the opposite? 02:04:07 I mean, I guess register windows give you extra registers, but they're windowed 02:04:27 "Note that in Intel 64 architecture, an update to the lower 32 bits of a 64 bit integer register is architecturally defined to zero extend the upper 32 bits. While this action may be logically viewed as a 32 bit update, it is really a 64 bit update (and therefore does not cause a partial stall)." 02:09:43 int-e: Hmm, x86 has "ADD r/m64, imm8" 02:09:49 Which I probably knew but forgot about. 02:09:59 That makes your complaint more justified. 02:10:04 By complaint I mean wonder. 02:10:56 shachaf: Yes, it has that for all arithmetic operations, but not for loads. 02:11:34 And it has an push imm8 as well. 02:11:44 s/an/a/ 02:12:36 Yes, that's an odd. 02:12:56 Often you can get by with the arithmetic ones, as long as you have a known starting point. 02:13:02 `` echo 'mov $60, %eax' | as -o /tmp/test.o - && objdump -d /tmp/test.o | grep -P '^ *\d+:' 02:13:03 0:b8 3c 00 00 00 mov $0x3c,%eax 02:13:06 `` echo 'xor %eax, %eax; or $60, %eax' | as -o /tmp/test.o - && objdump -d /tmp/test.o | grep -P '^ *\d+:' 02:13:07 0:31 c0 xor %eax,%eax \ 2:83 c8 3c or $0x3c,%eax 02:13:11 Oh well. 02:13:40 shachaf: so ironically, xor rax,rax; add rax,60 is 5 bytes, one byte shorter than the mov eax,60 you'd envision. ... right, just like that 02:14:17 (for a 64bit target) 02:15:06 You mean the one with the rex prefix? Because it's the same size otherwise. 02:15:22 (As seen just above.) 02:15:28 `` echo 'xor %rax, %rax; or $60, %eax' | as -o /tmp/test.o - && objdump -d /tmp/test.o | grep -P '^ *\d+:' | sed 's/^[^\t]*\t//; s/ *\t/: /g' 02:15:29 48 31 c0: xor %rax,%rax \ 83 c8 3c: or $0x3c,%eax 02:15:37 mmm. 02:16:02 you're right, I made a wrong assumption about how 64 bit mode would work. 02:17:14 `mkx bin/as-encoding//echo "$1" | as -o /tmp/out.o - && objdump -d /tmp/out.o | grep -P '^ *\d+:' | sed 's/^[^\t]*\t//; s/ *\t/: /g' 02:17:16 bin/as-encoding 02:17:23 `as-encoding mov %rax, %rbx 02:17:24 48 89 c3: mov %rax,%rbx 02:17:38 Oh, \d is wrong, isn't it. 02:17:59 `mkx bin/as-encoding//echo "$1" | as -o /tmp/out.o - && objdump -d /tmp/out.o | grep -P '^ *[0-9a-f]+:' | sed 's/^[^\t]*\t//; s/ *\t/: /g' 02:18:05 bin/as-encoding 02:18:56 `as-encoding mov (%rbp), %rdi 02:18:57 48 8b 7d 00: mov 0x0(%rbp),%rdi 02:19:25 `asm mov eax, 60 02:19:26 0: b8 3c 00 00 00 mov eax,0x3c 02:19:28 There was that one already. 02:19:36 It's an intel variant, though. 02:19:37 `as-encoding mov (%r13), %rdi 02:19:38 49 8b 7d 00: mov 0x0(%r13),%rdi 02:19:45 Oh, that one's probably better. 02:19:51 I did ask! 02:19:52 `cat bin/asm 02:19:52 `asm mov rax, 60 02:19:52 #!/bin/sh \ echo "$1" > /tmp/asm.s; for o in ',' '-msyntax=intel -mnaked-reg,-M intel'; do if as ${o%,*} /tmp/asm.s -o /tmp/asm.o 2>>/tmp/asm.err; then objdump ${o#*,} -d --insn-width=20 /tmp/asm.o | sed -e "1,/0000000000000000/d" | perl -pe 'if (/^\s*(\w+:)\s*((?:\w\w )+)\s*(\S.*)$/) { ($a,$b,$c) = ($1,$2,$3); $_ = "$a $b ".($c =~ s/\s+/ /rg)."\n"; }'; exit; fi; done; cat /tmp/asm.err 02:19:53 0: 48 c7 c0 3c 00 00 00 mov rax,0x3c 02:20:17 `asm mov rdi, [r13]; mov rdi, [r15] 02:20:20 0: 49 8b 7d 00 mov rdi,QWORD PTR [r13+0x0] \ 4: 49 8b 3f mov rdi,QWORD PTR [r15] 02:20:50 `asm mov rax, 6061626364656667h 02:20:51 /tmp/asm.s: Assembler messages: \ /tmp/asm.s:1: Error: too many memory references for `mov' \ /tmp/asm.s: Assembler messages: \ /tmp/asm.s:1: Error: junk `h' after expression 02:21:00 `asm mov rax, 0x6061626364656667 02:21:01 0: 48 b8 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 movabs rax,0x6061626364656667 02:21:37 is `asm` based on `nasm`? 02:21:47 No, it's still as. 02:22:13 `asm mov $60, %rax 02:22:14 0: 48 c7 c0 3c 00 00 00 mov $0x3c,%rax 02:22:15 Actually, looks like it guesses. 02:22:23 Oh boy, it tries both syntaxes. 02:22:33 An assembler with a conditional? as if! 02:22:49 It tries as + objdump without options, and if that fails it tries "-msyntax=intel -mnaked-reg" for as and "-M intel" for objdump. 02:22:54 That's kind of clever. 02:23:41 `asm movb $60, 60 02:23:42 0: c6 04 25 3c 00 00 00 3c movb $0x3c,0x3c 02:24:03 now wth is that c7 c0 instruction. 02:24:46 C7 /0 MOV r/m32, imm32 02:24:52 MOV r/m64, imm32? 02:24:54 `asm movd $60, (%rsi) 02:24:55 /tmp/asm.s: Assembler messages: \ /tmp/asm.s:1: Error: operand size mismatch for `movd' \ /tmp/asm.s: Assembler messages: \ /tmp/asm.s:1: Error: operand size mismatch for `movd' 02:25:13 `asm movq $60, (%rsi) 02:25:14 0: 48 c7 06 3c 00 00 00 movq $0x3c,(%rsi) 02:25:21 ah. 02:25:32 `cwlprits bin/asm 02:25:34 No output. 02:25:37 uh 02:25:40 `culprits bin/asm 02:25:42 fizzïe fizzïe fizzïe fizzïe fizzïe fizzïe fizzïe fizzïe fizzïe fizzïe shachäf shachäf ais52̈3 shachäf shachäf ais52̈3 ais52̈3 ais52̈3 ais52̈3 ais52̈3 ais52̈3 ais52̈3 ais52̈3 ais52̈3 Gregör Gregör 02:25:56 Can you add a feature where it prints the encoding in octal? 02:26:37 I guess that'd be handy for the ModR/M byte. 02:26:51 Not going to start doing that right now though. 02:27:16 It's handy for a bunch of other things too. 02:27:47 Anything that names a register, for instance. 02:27:48 `asm movq $0x6061626364656667, (%rsi) 02:27:49 0: 48 89 34 25 00 00 00 00 mov QWORD PTR ds:0x0,rsi 02:28:15 `asm movq $6061626364656667, (%rsi) 02:28:17 0: 48 89 34 25 00 00 00 00 mov QWORD PTR ds:0x0,rsi 02:28:42 that's confusing. 02:28:52 It's confusing because it's treating it as Intel syntax. 02:29:20 And treating the $ as part of a symbol? 02:29:24 Since it fails as AT&T syntax because the only instruction with a 64-bit immediate is mov r64, imm64 02:29:24 `asm movq [rsi], 0x6061626364656667 02:29:25 /tmp/asm.s: Assembler messages: \ /tmp/asm.s:1: Error: invalid char '[' beginning operand 1 `[rsi]' \ /tmp/asm.s: Assembler messages: \ /tmp/asm.s:1: Error: operand size mismatch for `movq' 02:29:29 Right. 02:29:42 That's unfortunate. 02:29:52 `as-encoding movq $6061626364656667, (%rsi) 02:29:53 {standard input}: Assembler messages: \ {standard input}:1: Error: operand size mismatch for `movq' 02:30:08 fair enough 02:30:24 I guess that's kind of an issue with all these "just try all the ways" things, there's a similar thing with the C one that tries with and without a main wrapper. 02:30:27 `asm mov eax, 60; mov rax, 60 02:30:29 0: b8 3c 00 00 00 mov eax,0x3c \ 5: 48 c7 c0 3c 00 00 00 mov rax,0x3c 02:30:31 Actually, why *is* that second one REX.W + C7 /0, and not REX.W + B8+ rd? 02:30:49 Oh, because that's the imm64. 02:30:56 Right. 02:30:58 yeah it's shorter this way 02:31:16 What a nice and orthogonal instruction set. 02:31:34 I've forgotten what /0 means. 02:31:38 Yes, it's a thing of pure beauty. 02:31:40 Is it the reg part of the modr/m byte? 02:32:01 Yes. 02:32:06 yes, /0 puts something in the mod r/m byte 02:32:19 I've also forgotten what rd means. 02:32:58 destination register? 02:33:03 I dunno. 02:33:06 It's "+rd", means adding a register code for a doubleword register to the byte on the left. 02:33:25 The pages just seem to format it with the + closer to the byte it gets added to. 02:33:34 But B8...BF are all mov rd, imm32 instructions 02:34:09 Why do they say "REX.W +"? 02:34:18 `asm inc rax 02:34:19 0: 48 ff c0 inc rax 02:34:22 Yes, and "B0+ rb" makes B0 .. B7 ones that are r8, imm8 ones. 02:34:39 This is all way simpler in base 8, hth. 02:34:41 Well, not strictly imm8. But the "d" is for size, not for "destination". 02:35:06 They say "REX.W +" because it was the 64-bit variant, which needs the REX prefix with the W bit set. 02:35:09 fizzie: yeah I got that a moment too late 02:35:20 But the + just means concatenation there? 02:35:29 Yes. 02:35:35 Or does it mean you add (or) the other REX bits or something 02:35:36 ? 02:35:37 OK. 02:35:39 The + that means "add to the value" is typeset slightly differently. 02:35:44 Oh. 02:35:48 I was looking at https://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/mov 02:36:19 Well, by "typeset" I really meant the whitespacing, which they've accurately reproduced. 02:36:26 The symbol itself looks the same. 02:37:03 But the spacing looks like "REX.W + B8+ rd" so you can arguably tell what kind of + it is. 02:37:37 the space before the "rd" is a bit odd 02:38:12 But e.g. https://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/jmp just says "REX.W FF" 02:38:13 It's odd especially because the interpretation guide says: "+rb, +rw, +rd, +ro". 02:38:30 (And so does the Intel manual, which I've now opened.) 02:38:42 shachaf: My version of the Intel manual says "REX.W + FF /5". 02:38:47 For JMP m16:64, anyway. 02:39:32 Really? Which version? 02:39:35 m16:64, hmm. 02:39:39 https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/39/c5/325462-sdm-vol-1-2abcd-3abcd.pdf PDF page 1072 says REX.W FF 02:39:56 I'm not sure where the version number is in this thing. 02:40:35 I know what the REX.W means but I was confusil about the +. 02:41:09 It says "Order Number: 325462-041US" and "December 2011" on the first page. 02:41:24 So they have broken it somewhere between 2011 and 2019. 02:42:13 Although arguably the "+"-free version is more logical, because that's how concatenation works most of the time there. 02:42:35 Hmm the version that I downloaded in June says REX.W FF /5 02:42:36 But this manual still has +s for mov. 02:43:35 I suspect I downloaded the 2011 version in 2011, and have not updated it since then. 02:43:44 the intel manuals often use illogical notation elsewhere too, in the pseudocode that describes instruction semantics 02:43:55 but for the mov it has, REX.W + B8+ rd io 02:43:57 it's a confusing manual 02:46:06 or maybe a confusil manual 02:46:11 or a confus manual 02:46:13 dunno 02:48:10 There was some specific overlong encoding which objdump represents using a pseudoregister eiz/riz to represent zero. 02:48:18 `asm .byte 0x88, 0x04, 0xa0 02:48:19 0: 88 04 a0 mov %al,(%rax,%riz,4) 02:48:42 The ones with a SIB byte that specify the row that doesn't do any scaling. 02:49:08 `asm .byte 0x88, 0x04, 0xe0 02:49:09 0: 88 04 e0 mov %al,(%rax,%riz,8) 02:49:40 Gives it a way to disambiguate, but I'm not sure how useful that is because I'm pretty sure there still some ambiguous cases where different bytes give the same text. 02:49:44 * int-e blinks 02:49:57 There's a %riz? 02:50:04 Not really. 02:50:26 Oh, you explained it there. 02:50:29 But there's a SIB byte encoding for each of the scaling levels (1, 2, 4, 8) that doesn't actually add a scaled register. 02:50:43 `asm .byte 0x88, 0x04, 0x20 02:50:44 0: 88 04 20 mov %al,(%rax,%riz,1) 02:51:05 `asm .byte 0x88, 0x00 02:51:06 0: 88 00 mov %al,(%rax) 02:51:10 -!- ArthurStrong has joined. 02:51:51 fizzie: do they have that in 32 bit mode too? 02:52:01 Yes, it's just called %eiz. 02:52:13 fun. 02:52:49 ndisasm shows both 88 04 20 and 88 00 as just `mov [rax], al`. 02:54:21 It's very convenient that x86 has a 3-operand add. 02:55:00 On the other hand: 02:55:01 `asm .byte 0x88, 0xc2, 0x8a, 0xd0 02:55:04 0: 88 c2 mov %al,%dl \ 2: 8a d0 mov %al,%dl 02:55:22 There's no disambiguating that thing. 02:55:52 But maybe there was some more specific way of showing it with eiz/riz than simply making it look different. 02:55:57 s/way/reason/ 02:56:37 fizzie: well, those encodings of mov dl, al have the same size 02:57:18 And as I understood it, the %riz actually makes a difference (since it adds a SIB). 02:57:27 is there a service that lets you run short programs on lots of different x86 architectures/families? 02:57:39 would be interesting to see if either encoding is uniformly faster 02:57:56 Oh, nitpick: "SIB = scaled index byte", so "SIB byte" is redundant. 02:58:01 `asm .byte 0xb0, 0xff, 0xc6, 0xc0, 0xff 02:58:05 0: b0 ff mov $0xff,%al \ 2: c6 c0 ff mov $0xff,%al 02:58:05 int-e: Those aren't the same size. 02:58:23 `asm .byte 0110, 0146, 0213, 0364 02:58:24 0: 48 rex.W \ 1: 66 8b f4 mov %sp,%si 02:58:32 fizzie: hmm, good point. 02:58:53 does as even accept the riz stuff... 02:59:00 `asm mov %al,(%rax,%riz,1) 02:59:02 /tmp/asm.s: Assembler messages: \ /tmp/asm.s:1: Error: bad register name `%riz' \ /tmp/asm.s: Assembler messages: \ /tmp/asm.s:1: Error: missing ')' \ /tmp/asm.s:1: Error: bad expression \ /tmp/asm.s:1: Error: junk `riz' after expression 02:59:10 I think it's not accepted on the input side. 02:59:30 It may just be an objdump peculiarity. 02:59:38 Should my assembler have different names for different register sizes? 02:59:50 That's another thing, why aren't these dump things ever round-trippable? 03:00:17 Your assembler/disassembler pair should have the property that (assemble . disassemble) is identity. 03:00:42 I wasn't going to have a disassmller, which lets me sidestep this requirement. 03:01:02 Do you think the assembler should always use an unambiguous name for unusual encodings? 03:01:13 I think it should add a footnote. 03:01:27 Or possibly a hover-tip. 03:01:38 Oh, I was still in the disassembler mindset, sorry. 03:01:57 I guess that could apply to an assembler as well, if it reads in a footnote. 03:02:14 . o O ( mov dl, al ) 03:02:47 `asm .byte 0213, 0303; .byte 0211, 0330 03:02:48 0: 8b c3 mov %ebx,%eax \ 2: 89 d8 mov %ebx,%eax 03:03:08 fizzie: Well, really I meant disassembler. 03:03:22 It's a tricky question what a /sane/ syntax for this would look like. 03:03:26 Disassembling the above two the same way doesn't seem that bad to me. 03:04:13 int-e: `mov 𝔞𝔩, 𝕕𝕝` vs. `mov 𝕒𝕝, 𝔡𝔩`. 03:04:16 It's a very niche case where you want to distinguish them. And different versions of an assembler could switch between encodings, so you'd be breaking some backwards compatibility by writing one of them out as nonstandard. 03:04:22 -!- FreeFull has quit. 03:04:24 fizzie: I see boxes :) 03:04:38 Maybe that's not so bad, and it wouldn't actually break compatibility meaningfully to have a default. 03:04:44 Maybe it'll work at http://esolangs.org/logs/2019-09-08.html#lif 03:05:17 `asm .byte 0211, 0303; .byte 0213, 0330 03:05:18 0: 89 c3 mov %eax,%ebx \ 2: 8b d8 mov %eax,%ebx 03:05:29 `asm mov %eax, %ebx 03:05:29 0: 89 c3 mov %eax,%ebx 03:05:33 `asm mov ebx, eax 03:05:34 0: 89 c3 mov ebx,eax 03:05:42 fizzie: yeah it works in logs (I had made my way to tunes) 03:05:47 I guess I should use the 0x89 encoding. 03:06:19 maybe just put appendices on the mnemonic... mov.mr and mov.rm 03:06:24 shachaf: I wonder if they settled on that just because 0x89 < 0x8b. 03:06:27 -!- Sgeo_ has joined. 03:06:54 Wait, those are the same assembler so it's not surprising that both syntaxes used the same encoding. 03:07:04 For some reason I was thinking it was nasm because it was mentioned earlier. 03:07:35 nasm does use 89 as well though. 03:08:01 godbolt.org has a checkbox to show the instruction encoding rather than just assembly. 03:08:07 But it doesn't work when you set the language to assembly! 03:08:18 I seem to recall that some people use variant instruction encodings for watermarking software. 03:08:26 int-e: That suffix thing rings a bell, I think there was a university course that did that for an x86 variant. 03:08:37 I opened an issue: https://github.com/mattgodbolt/compiler-explorer/issues/1567 03:08:39 That it used as the target, it was a course on compilers. 03:08:55 I tried to fix it locally but then it needed a new version of node.js to build so I gave up on it. 03:09:26 Oh, is Godbolt just their surname? 03:09:44 Yes. 03:09:45 I thought it was reference to a thunder deity or something. 03:09:49 In any case, as much as I'd like a round-trippable disassembler/assembler, I also want a noiseless disassembler that just conveys the semantics. 03:10:00 Though their Twitter nick is now "Matt Compiler-Explorer". 03:10:07 Heh. 03:10:10 So round-trippability should be an option, probably not even enabled by default. 03:10:36 -!- Sgeo__ has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds). 03:11:15 Must be odd to have your name forever associated with a thing that way. 03:11:24 Although I guess it's more or less the same for mathematicians. 03:12:12 it's already weird when you're just cited in a paper. "As