OD>Huh? What is ADX? It is the 32bit version of DX, as EAX is of AX?
TH>Sorry, "adx" is short for the address of the instruction data, and
OD>Address of the instruction data?  Please elaborate...
 TH> Well, the effective addresses for instructions requiring a far
 TH> address are always in the form [segment:offset]. The offset is the
 TH> first two butes and the segment follows. Instructions that come to
 TH> mind are the LEA, LDS, LES, and the various FAR jumps and calls.
So, I can use ADX like any other register, then?
 TH> These instructions get their data either as an imediate operand, or
 TH> are referenced from some other location, ie. indirect. In either case
 TH> it is the instructions data, ie. the pointer.
Funky.  Funky how a three-character mnemonic can signify that much over 
another of no less characters.. :)
TH>only two or three seconds for even those file sizes. PowerBASIC is a
OD>Yup. My Quick-Basic compiler happens to be fast, too. The largest
OD>I compiled must be my SamsalP demo... Didn't take THAT long to
 TH> I used QuickBasic before. I don't think I know the internals of
 TH> either to opin on which one is better overall. PowerBASIC has some
QB does not support inline assembler... but it's relatively easy to write 
external routines...
 TH> nice built in features QuickBASIC doesn't have. PB also has some
 TH> irritating bugs.
Like what?
 TH> I gusee what I like about PowerBASIC is that it comes with a command
 TH> line compiler. I like that, because PowerBASIC, like QuickBASIC, come
 TH> with crummy IDEs, IMHO. I wrote an IDE much more to my liking.
Quick-Basic also runs off a command-line compiler...  And Quick-Basic's IDE 
simply RULES!  Give me ONE other IDE that actually CORRECTS you in real-time, 
and checks syntax like that?
What does you IDE do that the others don't?
TH>true compiler and produces machine code. As for how effient it is,
OD>What, there are "fake" compilers?
 TH> Well, of course there are no 'fake' compilers. [grin]
:)  Not according to David Roper.. 
 TH> But, some compile 'P-code' files which are not executable. They are
 TH> tokens and data that an interpreter can follow more effiently than
 TH> the old interpreters of the old days like GWbasic and IBMs basic, but
 TH> are not as fast as true compilations. That's what I ment.
Hey, talking about real-time interpreters... I know some BASICs relied on a 
BASIC chipset.. Do they still make processors with those chipsets?  Or 
compilers that actually use them?
See ya around!
Omega@inorbit.com
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------