Rooba
/
ReC98
mirror of https://github.com/nmlgc/ReC98.git
1
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
ReC98/libs/BorlandC/putc.asm

481 lines
8.0 KiB
NASM
Raw Normal View History

[Reduction] #164-167: fputc and friends
2014-08-24 02:43:11 +00:00
; int __cdecl _fputc(char ch, FILE *fp)
public __fputc
[JWasm move] Don't use the DIST/CALLMODEL constants for procedures and labels Once you've actually found the right syntax that makes the assembler just use the default call type of the current memory model for both procedures (where it's just "PROC" without anything else) and labels (where it's "LABEL PROC"), these constants become completely unneccessary, even with TASM.
2014-11-05 17:20:02 +00:00
__fputc proc
[Reduction] #164-167: fputc and friends
2014-08-24 02:43:11 +00:00
@@ch = byte ptr dPtrSize + 2
@@fp = dword ptr dPtrSize + 4
push bp
mov bp, sp
push si
push di
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
dec es:[bx+FILE.level]
push word ptr [bp+@@fp+2]
push bx
mov al, [bp+@@ch]
cbw
push ax
nopcall _fputc
add sp, 6
pop di
pop si
pop bp
ret
__fputc endp
; int __cdecl fputc(int ch, FILE *fp)
public _fputc
[JWasm move] Don't use the DIST/CALLMODEL constants for procedures and labels Once you've actually found the right syntax that makes the assembler just use the default call type of the current memory model for both procedures (where it's just "PROC" without anything else) and labels (where it's "LABEL PROC"), these constants become completely unneccessary, even with TASM.
2014-11-05 17:20:02 +00:00
_fputc proc
[Reduction] #164-167: fputc and friends
2014-08-24 02:43:11 +00:00
@@ch = byte ptr dPtrSize + 2
@@fp = dword ptr dPtrSize + 4
push bp
mov bp, sp
push si
push di
mov al, [bp+@@ch]
mov fputc_c, al
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
cmp es:[bx+FILE.level], -1
jge short @@checkFlags
inc es:[bx+FILE.level]
[JWasm move] Fix improper structure declarations Really, Borland? You considered it necessary to add directives for object- oriented programming (in Assembly!) and convenience features like bitfield records or PUSHSTATE/POPSTATE, yet you never came up with the actually *helpful* idea of just adding a simple basic pointer data type that depends on the current memory model's data size? Like, something like DP... oh wait, that's already taken, as an alias for DF, the 48-bit 80386 far pointer type. And this, exactly, is the problem with assemblers. The language itself is undefined beyond the instructions themselves, but it's obviously very uncomfortable to program anything with just that, so your assembler needs to add custom directives on top of that, and of course everyone has different ideas of the features and use cases that should (and should not) be covered by syntax. (I'm looking especially at you, NASM.) And then one of those developers sells their compiler division to a different company, which then subsequently discontinues all products without ever releasing the source code, trapping their nice extensions in a single executable for a single platform that is not even legally available anymore. tl;dr: http://xkcd.com/927/
2014-11-20 03:55:57 +00:00
mov dx, word ptr es:[bx+FILE.curp+2]
mov si, word ptr es:[bx+FILE.curp]
inc word ptr es:[bx+FILE.curp]
[Reduction] #164-167: fputc and friends
2014-08-24 02:43:11 +00:00
mov es, dx
mov es:[si], al
mov es, word ptr [bp+@@fp+2]
test byte ptr es:[bx+FILE.flags], 8
jnz short @@LBufFlush?
jmp @@retC
@@LBufFlush?:
cmp fputc_c, 0Ah
jz short @@LBufFlush
cmp fputc_c, 0Dh
jz short @@LBufFlush
jmp @@retC
@@LBufFlush:
push word ptr [bp+@@fp+2]
push word ptr [bp+@@fp] ; stream
nopcall _fflush
pop cx
pop cx
or ax, ax
jnz short @@j1_retEOF
jmp @@retC
@@j1_retEOF:
jmp @@retEOF
@@checkFlags:
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
test byte ptr es:[bx+FILE.flags], 90h
jnz short @@setErr
test byte ptr es:[bx+FILE.flags], 2
jnz short @@setOut
@@setErr:
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
or es:[bx+FILE.flags], 10h
jmp @@retEOF
@@setOut:
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
or es:[bx+FILE.flags], 100h
cmp es:[bx+FILE._bsize], 0
jz short @@unbuffered
cmp es:[bx+FILE.level], 0
jz short @@bufferedPut
push word ptr [bp+@@fp+2]
push bx
nopcall _fflush
pop cx
pop cx
or ax, ax
jz short @@bufferedPut
jmp @@retEOF
@@bufferedPut:
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
mov ax, es:[bx+FILE._bsize]
neg ax
mov es:[bx+FILE.level], ax
[JWasm move] Fix improper structure declarations Really, Borland? You considered it necessary to add directives for object- oriented programming (in Assembly!) and convenience features like bitfield records or PUSHSTATE/POPSTATE, yet you never came up with the actually *helpful* idea of just adding a simple basic pointer data type that depends on the current memory model's data size? Like, something like DP... oh wait, that's already taken, as an alias for DF, the 48-bit 80386 far pointer type. And this, exactly, is the problem with assemblers. The language itself is undefined beyond the instructions themselves, but it's obviously very uncomfortable to program anything with just that, so your assembler needs to add custom directives on top of that, and of course everyone has different ideas of the features and use cases that should (and should not) be covered by syntax. (I'm looking especially at you, NASM.) And then one of those developers sells their compiler division to a different company, which then subsequently discontinues all products without ever releasing the source code, trapping their nice extensions in a single executable for a single platform that is not even legally available anymore. tl;dr: http://xkcd.com/927/
2014-11-20 03:55:57 +00:00
mov dx, word ptr es:[bx+FILE.curp+2]
mov si, word ptr es:[bx+FILE.curp]
inc word ptr es:[bx+FILE.curp]
[Reduction] #164-167: fputc and friends
2014-08-24 02:43:11 +00:00
mov al, fputc_c
mov es, dx
mov es:[si], al
mov es, word ptr [bp+@@fp+2]
test byte ptr es:[bx+FILE.flags], 8
jnz short @@bufferedFlush?
jmp @@retC
@@bufferedFlush?:
cmp fputc_c, 0Ah
jz short @@bufferedFlush
cmp fputc_c, 0Dh
jz short @@bufferedFlush
jmp @@retC
@@bufferedFlush:
push word ptr [bp+@@fp+2]
push word ptr [bp+@@fp]
nopcall _fflush
pop cx
pop cx
or ax, ax
jnz short @@j2_retEOF
jmp @@retC
@@j2_retEOF:
jmp @@retEOF
@@unbuffered:
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
mov al, es:[bx+FILE.fd]
cbw
add ax, ax
mov bx, ax
test byte ptr (_openfd+1)[bx], 8
jz short @@unbufferedText
mov ax, 2
push ax
xor ax, ax
push ax
push ax
mov bx, word ptr [bp+@@fp]
mov al, es:[bx+FILE.fd]
cbw
push ax
nopcall _lseek
add sp, 8
@@unbufferedText:
cmp fputc_c, 0Ah
jnz short @@unbufferedPutC
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
test byte ptr es:[bx+FILE.flags], 40h
jnz short @@unbufferedPutC
mov ax, 1
push ax
push ds
mov ax, offset fputc_cr
push ax
mov al, es:[bx+FILE.fd]
cbw
push ax
nopcall __rtl_write
add sp, 8
cmp ax, 1
jnz short @@unbufferedFlag
@@unbufferedPutC:
mov ax, 1
push ax
push ds
mov ax, offset fputc_c
push ax
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
mov al, es:[bx+FILE.fd]
cbw
push ax
nopcall __rtl_write
add sp, 8
cmp ax, 1
jz short @@retC
@@unbufferedFlag:
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
test byte ptr es:[bx+FILE.flags+1], 2
jnz short @@retC
or es:[bx+FILE.flags], 10h
@@retEOF:
mov ax, 0FFFFh
jmp short @@ret
@@retC:
mov al, fputc_c
mov ah, 0
@@ret:
pop di
pop si
pop bp
ret
_fputc endp
; int __cdecl fputchar(int c)
public _fputchar
[JWasm move] Don't use the DIST/CALLMODEL constants for procedures and labels Once you've actually found the right syntax that makes the assembler just use the default call type of the current memory model for both procedures (where it's just "PROC" without anything else) and labels (where it's "LABEL PROC"), these constants become completely unneccessary, even with TASM.
2014-11-05 17:20:02 +00:00
_fputchar proc
[Reduction] #164-167: fputc and friends
2014-08-24 02:43:11 +00:00
@@ch = word ptr dPtrSize + 2
push bp
mov bp, sp
push si
push di
push ds
mov ax, offset stdout
push ax
push [bp+@@ch]
call _fputc
add sp, 6
pop di
pop si
pop bp
ret
_fputchar endp
; int __stdcall _FPUTN(FILE *fp, size_t n, void *ptr)
__FPUTN proc near
@@len = word ptr -2
@@fp = dword ptr 4
@@n = word ptr 8
@@ptr = dword ptr 0Ah
push bp
mov bp, sp
sub sp, 2
push si
push di
mov ax, [bp+@@n]
mov [bp+@@len], ax
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
test byte ptr es:[bx+FILE.flags], 8
jz short @@NoBuf
jmp short @@LBufLoop
@@LBufPut:
push word ptr [bp+@@fp+2]
push word ptr [bp+@@fp]
les bx, [bp+@@ptr]
inc word ptr [bp+@@ptr]
mov al, es:[bx]
cbw
push ax
call _fputc
add sp, 6
cmp ax, 0FFFFh
jnz short @@LBufLoop
jmp @@ret0
@@LBufLoop:
mov ax, [bp+@@n]
dec [bp+@@n]
or ax, ax
jnz short @@LBufPut
jmp @@retLen
@@NoBuf:
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
test byte ptr es:[bx+FILE.flags], 40h
jnz short @@bin
jmp @@text
@@bin:
cmp es:[bx+FILE._bsize], 0
jnz short @@binBuffered
jmp @@binUnbuffered
@@binBuffered:
mov ax, es:[bx+FILE._bsize]
cmp ax, [bp+@@n]
jnb short @@binBufferedFit
cmp es:[bx+FILE.level], 0
jz short @@binAppend?
push word ptr [bp+@@fp+2]
push bx
nopcall _fflush
pop cx
pop cx
or ax, ax
jz short @@binAppend?
jmp @@ret0
@@binAppend?:
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
mov al, es:[bx+FILE.fd]
cbw
add ax, ax
mov bx, ax
test byte ptr (_openfd+1)[bx], 8
jz short @@binWrite
mov ax, 2
push ax
xor ax, ax
push ax
push ax
mov bx, word ptr [bp+@@fp]
mov al, es:[bx+FILE.fd]
cbw
push ax
nopcall _lseek
add sp, 8
@@binWrite:
push [bp+@@n]
push word ptr [bp+@@ptr+2]
push word ptr [bp+@@ptr]
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
mov al, es:[bx+FILE.fd]
cbw
push ax
nopcall __rtl_write
add sp, 8
cmp ax, [bp+@@n]
jnz short @@j1_ret0
jmp @@retLen
@@j1_ret0:
jmp @@ret0
@@binBufferedFit:
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
mov ax, es:[bx+FILE.level]
add ax, [bp+@@n]
jl short @@binBufferedStuff
cmp word ptr es:[bx], 0
jnz short @@binBufferedFlush
mov ax, 0FFFFh
sub ax, es:[bx+FILE._bsize]
mov es:[bx+FILE.level], ax
jmp short @@binBufferedStuff
@@binBufferedFlush:
push word ptr [bp+@@fp+2]
push word ptr [bp+@@fp]
nopcall _fflush
pop cx
pop cx
or ax, ax
jz short @@binBufferedStuff
jmp @@ret0
@@binBufferedStuff:
push [bp+@@n]
push word ptr [bp+@@ptr+2]
push word ptr [bp+@@ptr]
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
[JWasm move] Fix improper structure declarations Really, Borland? You considered it necessary to add directives for object- oriented programming (in Assembly!) and convenience features like bitfield records or PUSHSTATE/POPSTATE, yet you never came up with the actually *helpful* idea of just adding a simple basic pointer data type that depends on the current memory model's data size? Like, something like DP... oh wait, that's already taken, as an alias for DF, the 48-bit 80386 far pointer type. And this, exactly, is the problem with assemblers. The language itself is undefined beyond the instructions themselves, but it's obviously very uncomfortable to program anything with just that, so your assembler needs to add custom directives on top of that, and of course everyone has different ideas of the features and use cases that should (and should not) be covered by syntax. (I'm looking especially at you, NASM.) And then one of those developers sells their compiler division to a different company, which then subsequently discontinues all products without ever releasing the source code, trapping their nice extensions in a single executable for a single platform that is not even legally available anymore. tl;dr: http://xkcd.com/927/
2014-11-20 03:55:57 +00:00
push word ptr es:[bx+FILE.curp+2]
push word ptr es:[bx+FILE.curp]
[Reduction] #164-167: fputc and friends
2014-08-24 02:43:11 +00:00
nopcall _memcpy
add sp, 0Ah
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
mov ax, es:[bx+FILE.level]
add ax, [bp+@@n]
mov es:[bx+FILE.level], ax
mov ax, [bp+@@n]
[JWasm move] Fix improper structure declarations Really, Borland? You considered it necessary to add directives for object- oriented programming (in Assembly!) and convenience features like bitfield records or PUSHSTATE/POPSTATE, yet you never came up with the actually *helpful* idea of just adding a simple basic pointer data type that depends on the current memory model's data size? Like, something like DP... oh wait, that's already taken, as an alias for DF, the 48-bit 80386 far pointer type. And this, exactly, is the problem with assemblers. The language itself is undefined beyond the instructions themselves, but it's obviously very uncomfortable to program anything with just that, so your assembler needs to add custom directives on top of that, and of course everyone has different ideas of the features and use cases that should (and should not) be covered by syntax. (I'm looking especially at you, NASM.) And then one of those developers sells their compiler division to a different company, which then subsequently discontinues all products without ever releasing the source code, trapping their nice extensions in a single executable for a single platform that is not even legally available anymore. tl;dr: http://xkcd.com/927/
2014-11-20 03:55:57 +00:00
add word ptr es:[bx+FILE.curp], ax
[Reduction] #164-167: fputc and friends
2014-08-24 02:43:11 +00:00
jmp @@retLen
@@binUnbuffered:
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
mov al, es:[bx+FILE.fd]
cbw
add ax, ax
mov bx, ax
test byte ptr (_openfd+1)[bx], 8
jz short @@binUnbufferedWrite
mov ax, 2
push ax
xor ax, ax
push ax
push ax
mov bx, word ptr [bp+@@fp]
mov al, es:[bx+FILE.fd]
cbw
push ax
nopcall _lseek
add sp, 8
@@binUnbufferedWrite:
push [bp+@@n]
push word ptr [bp+@@ptr+2]
push word ptr [bp+@@ptr]
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
mov al, es:[bx+FILE.fd]
cbw
push ax
nopcall __rtl_write
add sp, 8
cmp ax, [bp+@@n]
jnz short @@j2_ret0
[JWasm move] Fix improper structure declarations Really, Borland? You considered it necessary to add directives for object- oriented programming (in Assembly!) and convenience features like bitfield records or PUSHSTATE/POPSTATE, yet you never came up with the actually *helpful* idea of just adding a simple basic pointer data type that depends on the current memory model's data size? Like, something like DP... oh wait, that's already taken, as an alias for DF, the 48-bit 80386 far pointer type. And this, exactly, is the problem with assemblers. The language itself is undefined beyond the instructions themselves, but it's obviously very uncomfortable to program anything with just that, so your assembler needs to add custom directives on top of that, and of course everyone has different ideas of the features and use cases that should (and should not) be covered by syntax. (I'm looking especially at you, NASM.) And then one of those developers sells their compiler division to a different company, which then subsequently discontinues all products without ever releasing the source code, trapping their nice extensions in a single executable for a single platform that is not even legally available anymore. tl;dr: http://xkcd.com/927/
2014-11-20 03:55:57 +00:00
; Hack (jmp long @@retLen)
db 0e9h, 07fh, 000h
[Reduction] #164-167: fputc and friends
2014-08-24 02:43:11 +00:00
@@j2_ret0:
jmp short @@ret0
@@text:
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
cmp es:[bx+FILE._bsize], 0
jz short @@textUnbuffered
jmp short @@textBufferedLoop
@@textBuffered:
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
inc word ptr es:[bx]
jge short @@textBufferedPut
[JWasm move] Fix improper structure declarations Really, Borland? You considered it necessary to add directives for object- oriented programming (in Assembly!) and convenience features like bitfield records or PUSHSTATE/POPSTATE, yet you never came up with the actually *helpful* idea of just adding a simple basic pointer data type that depends on the current memory model's data size? Like, something like DP... oh wait, that's already taken, as an alias for DF, the 48-bit 80386 far pointer type. And this, exactly, is the problem with assemblers. The language itself is undefined beyond the instructions themselves, but it's obviously very uncomfortable to program anything with just that, so your assembler needs to add custom directives on top of that, and of course everyone has different ideas of the features and use cases that should (and should not) be covered by syntax. (I'm looking especially at you, NASM.) And then one of those developers sells their compiler division to a different company, which then subsequently discontinues all products without ever releasing the source code, trapping their nice extensions in a single executable for a single platform that is not even legally available anymore. tl;dr: http://xkcd.com/927/
2014-11-20 03:55:57 +00:00
mov dx, word ptr es:[bx+FILE.curp+2]
mov si, word ptr es:[bx+FILE.curp]
inc word ptr es:[bx+FILE.curp]
[Reduction] #164-167: fputc and friends
2014-08-24 02:43:11 +00:00
les bx, [bp+@@ptr]
inc word ptr [bp+@@ptr]
mov al, es:[bx]
mov es, dx
mov es:[si], al
mov ah, 0
jmp short @@textBufferedEOF?
@@textBufferedPut:
push word ptr [bp+@@fp+2]
push word ptr [bp+@@fp]
les bx, [bp+@@ptr]
inc word ptr [bp+@@ptr]
mov al, es:[bx]
push ax
call __fputc
add sp, 6
@@textBufferedEOF?:
cmp ax, 0FFFFh
jz short @@ret0
@@textBufferedLoop:
mov ax, [bp+@@n]
dec [bp+@@n]
or ax, ax
jnz short @@textBuffered
jmp short @@retLen
@@textUnbuffered:
push [bp+@@n]
push word ptr [bp+@@ptr+2]
push word ptr [bp+@@ptr]
les bx, [bp+@@fp]
mov al, es:[bx+FILE.fd]
cbw
push ax
nopcall ___write
add sp, 8
cmp ax, [bp+@@n]
jz short @@retLen
@@ret0:
xor ax, ax
jmp short @@ret
@@retLen:
mov ax, [bp+@@len]
@@ret:
pop di
pop si
mov sp, bp
pop bp
retn 0Ah
__FPUTN endp