Advanced Linux Programming
in [ASM]
|
From: SpooK on 20 Feb 2007 12:37 On Feb 20, 1:00 am, Betov <b...(a)free.fr> wrote: > "Evenbit" <nbaker2...(a)charter.net> écrivait news:1171942188.150538.173100 > @t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com: > > > NASM works just fine without an Equates file, so I conclude that an > > Equates file is *not required* and is *not germain* to assembly > > programming. > > NASM is not a Assembly specificaly written for Win32. > Precisely. The assembler's constraint should be that of the architecture, not any particular operating system that may be running on said architecture... assuming a real assembler could do otherwise in the first place. Plug n' Play, as they say. Beyond that, NASM32 (http://www.asmcommunity.net/projects/nasm32/) seems to do just fine with developing Win32 apps. Nothing but a bunch of include files for Win32 API support... and as if that concept could be any different either. If you want the ease of IDE and mouse clicks, use RadASM... a real assembly language IDE :)
From: //o//annabee on 20 Feb 2007 16:51 P� Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:37:13 +0100, skrev SpooK <keith(a)dynatos.net>: > Beyond that, NASM32 (http://www.asmcommunity.net/projects/nasm32/) > seems to do just fine with developing Win32 apps. Just realize that it took longer time to COPY the code I wrote with RosAsm into NASM, than it took to create it. And also realize that the timediffrence was more like 1-50 in favor of RosAsm. And realize that I simply gave up on finding some of the bugs that made the NASM version fail for some cases. Progging NASM was a certifiable nightmare compared to the RosAsm one. Maybe I could have done better, if using a IDE for NASM though, as I used Notepad todo it, but given I taken a look at RadAsm, I doubt it would made much of a diffrence. Added to this, many of the bugs for the NASM version, that I bothered to fix, I found by using the RosAsm Disassembler to step the code :)) > Nothing but a bunch > of include files for Win32 API support... and as if that concept could > be any different either. If you want the ease of IDE and mouse clicks, > use RadASM... a real assembly language IDE :) If one does not want the ease of an IDE like RosAsm, its because the proggy that one is working on is to small to make much of a diffrence, or simply that one have never realized the extreme benefit of doing so. For an app larger then about 10ko, if ment to run under window, it would be simply insane to not use RosAsm.
From: SpooK on 22 Feb 2007 12:25 On Feb 20, 3:51 pm, //\\\\o//\\\\annabee <Wannabee.Wannabee.org> wrote: > På Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:37:13 +0100, skrev SpooK <k...(a)dynatos.net>: > > > Beyond that, NASM32 (http://www.asmcommunity.net/projects/nasm32/) > > seems to do just fine with developing Win32 apps. > > Just realize that it took longer time to COPY the code I wrote with RosAsm > into NASM, than it took to create it. That is common when translating a convoluted syntax back to a more accepted and pure form, no worries :) > And also realize that the > timediffrence was more like 1-50 in favor of RosAsm. Yes, and DOS can start up in 1/50th the time that it takes Windows to do so... but I doubt you are posting your replies in DOS ;) > And realize that I > simply gave up on finding some of the bugs that made the NASM version fail > for some cases. Which version of NASM??? You must be doing something quite awkward to invoke any amount of trouble that you suggest. Maybe you should post the RosASM source code in question so others see if they can find the problem? I am willing to take a stab at it ;) > Progging NASM was a certifiable nightmare compared to the > RosAsm one. Maybe I could have done better, if using a IDE for NASM > though, as I used Notepad todo it, but given I taken a look at RadAsm, I > doubt it would made much of a diffrence. I use GVIM, syntax highlighting is always a plus. Sorry to say, an IDE doesn't make a better programmer. Also, interfacing with a syntax that makes more sense to you doesn't mean you are any better at programming said architecture. When you break a programming language down, it is simply math and logic with a few twists. > Added to this, many of the bugs > for the NASM version, that I bothered to fix, I found by using the RosAsm > Disassembler to step the code :) I imagine much of your stress is due to extensive use of macros, perhaps poorly written ones as well... so... Garbage In, Garbage Out??? > If one does not want the ease of an IDE like RosAsm, its because the > proggy that one is working on is to small to make much of a diffrence, or > simply that one have never realized the extreme benefit of doing so. For > an app larger then about 10ko, if ment to run under window, it would be > simply insane to not use RosAsm. I think the dark days of BIG_FILE.ASM are over. I don't see how this statement holds any bearing, even as compared to using a single file in RadASM. I know most of this post seems aggressive, wannabe... but I really am interested in seeing your RosASM example and converting it myself. Who knows, maybe you will teach me something :)
From: rhyde on 22 Feb 2007 14:55 On Feb 19, 11:00 pm, Betov <b...(a)free.fr> wrote: > "Evenbit" <nbaker2...(a)charter.net> écrivait news:1171942188.150538.173100 > @t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com: > > > NASM works just fine without an Equates file, so I conclude that an > > Equates file is *not required* and is *not germain* to assembly > > programming. > > NASM is not a Assembly specificaly written for Win32. > > > Why not leave it up to the programmer to define his own equates (or > > 'include' the file) if he wants them? > > Not only he _can_, but he can have several personal equates files. > Of course, if the density of equates to source code gets too high, RosAsm crashes. But then, that's not a bug, is it? Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: Frank Kotler on 22 Feb 2007 20:33
SpooK wrote: > On Feb 20, 3:51 pm, //\\\\o//\\\\annabee <Wannabee.Wannabee.org> > wrote: > >>P� Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:37:13 +0100, skrev SpooK <k...(a)dynatos.net>: >> >> >>>Beyond that, NASM32 (http://www.asmcommunity.net/projects/nasm32/) >>>seems to do just fine with developing Win32 apps. >> >>Just realize that it took longer time to COPY the code I wrote with RosAsm >>into NASM, than it took to create it. > > That is common when translating a convoluted syntax back to a more > accepted and pure form, no worries :) From Wannabee's viewpoint, he was translating from an "improved" syntax back to the "unimproved" one. That's harder, psycologically, I think. >>And also realize that the >>timediffrence was more like 1-50 in favor of RosAsm. > > Yes, and DOS can start up in 1/50th the time that it takes Windows to > do so... but I doubt you are posting your replies in DOS ;) Well you *could*, y'know. I'm not sure which "time" we're discussing. Nasm is slow, we know that. I don't recall that it was particularly bad on "nbliss". Curiously, I think Nasm's faster on a "monofile" project than on one that "%include win32.inc"s. But I think Wannabee' talking about coding time. >>And realize that I >>simply gave up on finding some of the bugs that made the NASM version fail >>for some cases. > > Which version of NASM??? You must be doing something quite awkward to > invoke any amount of trouble that you suggest. I don't think it was strictly a "Nasm problem" - more a "translation problem", I think. The RosAsm version I looked at had problems in win98. The Nasm version was worse. Since I couldn't see what it was "supposed" to do, I wasn't any help finding the problem(s) in the Nasm version. > Maybe you should post the RosASM source code in question so others see > if they can find the problem? I am willing to take a stab at it ;) At one time, both "bliss" and "nbliss" were available somewhere around "wannabee.org", aka http://www.szmyggenpv.com/RosAsm.htm - I can't find an exact filename right now. I've got 'em, but on a drive that's not plugged into this machine right now (and perhaps not latest version). We can come up with 'em. I hope you do take a look at it. I'm mostly not in the mood to run Windows (and haven't got wine installed), don't know the Windows API, and am not much interested in learning it. The reason 'bee went through the pain of translating it to Nasm was so that we could see about porting it to Xwindows. I understood, before I looked at it, that we were talking about a "minimalist" homemade GUI that called the Windows API as little as possible. I think Wannabee got a little too "advanced" for me - I never got fully "oriented" in the thing. It's too good an idea to let drop, so I hope you, or someone, gets into it! >>Progging NASM was a certifiable nightmare compared to the >>RosAsm one. Maybe I could have done better, if using a IDE for NASM >>though, as I used Notepad todo it, but given I taken a look at RadAsm, I >>doubt it would made much of a diffrence. > > I use GVIM, syntax highlighting is always a plus. Sorry to say, an IDE > doesn't make a better programmer. Also, interfacing with a syntax that > makes more sense to you doesn't mean you are any better at programming > said architecture. When you break a programming language down, it is > simply math and logic with a few twists. I don't know GVIM (or RosAsm)... I consider syntax highlighting a "distraction", but I guess you could get used to it. Question is, once you've got it highlighted, can you "navigate" on it? Looking at Wannabee's Nasm version of "bliss", it's fairly obvious that he's used to having some features unique (AFAIK) to RosAsm's "sources editor". >>Added to this, many of the bugs >>for the NASM version, that I bothered to fix, I found by using the RosAsm >>Disassembler to step the code :) Ndisasm will disassemble the code, but won't "step" it, of course. I suppose you mean debugger. The integrated disassembler and debugger are another of RosAsm's good tricks! > I imagine much of your stress is due to extensive use of macros, > perhaps poorly written ones as well... so... Garbage In, Garbage > Out??? I don't think it was a macro problem. I showed Wannabee a macro, based on Nasm's undocumented "&" syntax, so he could use "B$", "W$", "D$". Thought it would be easier for him. Probably a mistake. Made it harder for me to read, and I'm not sure it was any easier for him - not enough, anyway. Part of Wannabee's "difficulty" with translating to Nasm is that he didn't want to "%include 'nagoa+.inc'", or whatever - rightly so: he doesn't know what's in it. So he was stuck with implementing all the equates (that RosAsm "preincludes") and macros that he wanted - in an unfamiliar syntax - without snippits to cut-and-paste from - right in the one file. >>If one does not want the ease of an IDE like RosAsm, its because the >>proggy that one is working on is to small to make much of a diffrence, or >>simply that one have never realized the extreme benefit of doing so. For >>an app larger then about 10ko, if ment to run under window, it would be >>simply insane to not use RosAsm. > > I think the dark days of BIG_FILE.ASM are over. I don't see how this > statement holds any bearing, even as compared to using a single file > in RadASM. RosAsm goes a long, long way towards lightening the darkness of BIG_FILE.ASM. It's designed "from the bottom up" to work with BIG_FILE.ASM. I'm not sure I agree that it makes monofile programming "The Answer". There are advantages to modular programming - "manyfile.asm and all its children, aunts, incles, and cousins". If one chooses to work with a single file, RosAsm aims to ease the pain. > I know most of this post seems aggressive, wannabe... You didn't call him a fucky one. :) > but I really am > interested in seeing your RosASM example and converting it myself. Who > knows, maybe you will teach me something :) I hope you'll look at it and discuss it a little here ("civilly" would be nice, but whatever). Perhaps we'll all learn something. Best, Frank |