How do you do it? I was just trying to use some old code I had using inline assembly that I had writted for Borland. In Borland all you have to do is write asm before the line of code, or block it like asm{whatever}. VC++ apparently doesn't do it like that.

_asm or __asm I think

both should work (eg both _asm and __asm)

Yeah it does, thanks. It doesn't like any of my code though, guess Ill just use Borland

/me fetches his C reference manual:

asm ("instruction");

That would be one instruction. GCC has an extended form:

asm ("instruction0" : "instruction1" : "instruction2" : ... : "instruction n");

My reference manual also says some compilers support:

asm
{
more_than_one_instruction_here
}

Who wants to join me in pointing and laughing at unknown_lamer for doing something as ridiculous as telling how to do something in GCC in a thread with VC++ in its topic, and a thread that had already been resolved, at that?

"instruction" as a string? runtime compiling? nice :)
In vc++ you have to use __asm or _asm (with or without the block)..

Hmm.. anyone else using vc++ experiencing some fancy hangups when using inline assembly? Sometimes (seeming random) the whole IDE just stops responding to anything if i got .cpp /.inl file with assembly on the screen :/ (funny enough it dosent happen if it's offscreen)

I'm joining Psion here...

/me points and laughs

It seems like he didn't read my whole post, but thanks for helping anyway lamer

No, asm is the standard C way. The C89 standard says that is how you do it: asm ("instruction"); the instruction is assembled with the assembler. It is in a string because it is passed to the assembler and the assembly instructions are (obviously) not going to conform to C grammar. I put the GCC way as well because I thought that maybe other compilers like VC++ did it that way too (no use in not trying). If VC++ doesn't support the asm ("...") call then that just shows how much more it sucks.

The point is Taubz had already answered my question, you use _asm. And VC++ doesn't suck, it's a hella lot better than GCC

In terms of standards support GCC 3.1 is much better than VC++. If you use _asm you have just made your code non-portable (I know..using asm in general makes your code non-portable, but you can at least try to make it portable to other operating systems on the same processor). All compilers should support the standard way of doing things, not their own stupid hacks. (quick correction: C89 does not have asm, C99 and the C++ standard do, therefore VC++ should still support it because it is a C++ compiler...).

Thats nice...

<WARNING: the following text contains high levels of sarcasm, read with caution. Keep away from children and idiots>

Visual C++ is M$-stuff. What did you expect? The whole idea is that you'll use it until you're death or retired (whatever comes first). This difference is a feature for your protection, in case you accidentally install an inferior compiler.
Why would anyone want to change to another compiler anyway? As if anyone can write a better one than the programmer of Microsoft.

RedX

It works perfectly fine for me and has been used to produce virtually ALL modern retail software products.

Just because everyone uses it doesn't make it good...

I'm afraid I'll have to agree with unknown_lamer on *that* bit.. The most popular thing isn't always the best.

But that's as far as I'll go, cuz I firmly believe that you choose what you want to use for your programming, then go with that. If you're using VC++, and you don't plan on programming for another system than Windows, then why should you switch compiler? Surely the best one for Windows-programming *is* VC++, given both products are MS?