From: Mihai N. on

Hmm, I just dicovered that my trust-worthy masm 5.10
(and link 5.01) that I keep carying around does not
work on Win 7 64 bit.
I need to find a newer version.

It's ok, it's only 20 years old (1988).
It it would have been some Apple stuff I would
have had to change it every 2 years :-)

Mihai Nita [Microsoft MVP, Visual C++]
Replace _year_ with _ to get the real email

From: Giovanni Dicanio on
"Geoff" <geoff(a)invalid.invalid> ha scritto nel messaggio

> I dug around my bookshelves and finally came up with the MASM book I
> got with my original Windows SDK. (the big blue and white box)
> Title: Microsoft Macro Assembler 5.1 Programmer's Guide
> Copyright: 1987

So back in the days the Windows SDK was made not only by header files but
also by paper-based documentation and books?


From: Giovanni Dicanio on
"Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer(a)> ha scritto nel messaggio

> It is surprising how horribly bad the documentation is.
> MASM doesn't support Unicode, and I even have a slide that points this
> out; it has to be
> hello DB 'H', 00h, 'E', 00h, 'L', 00h, 'L', 00h, 'O', 00h, 00h, 00h
> I can see why companies are having problems finding people who can program
> in assembler.
> When you can't learn how something works, you won't use it.

Probably when MASM was developed Unicode did not exist?
(I've never used this MASM, I don't know. I just used Devpac Assembler for
Motorola MC68000 on Commodore Amiga).

> But now they're paying the price: people who need super-high-performance
> and want to use
> the fancy MMX/XMM/etc instructions can't figure out how to use them or
> write them;

I have no idea of the assembly of the new Intel CPUs, but I read somewhere
that writing *hand-coded* optimized assembly code is hard these days (it's
not like the age of 80286 or Motorola 68000), and optimizing C++ compilers
do a better job than humans in producing optimized assembly code.

>The number of us who used to earn our livings
> writing huge systems in assembly code (250K lines) is dwindling...

Wow... Writing 250K lines of assembly code must be a titanic work (leaving
apart debugging...!).

> I don't really believe in writing more that tiny subroutines in assembler,
> but what I seem
> to take for granted--how to write assembly code--is apparently becoming a
> lost art.

As is COM programming :)

> I thought writing a course in using MASM would be easy. It probably would
> be, if there
> were any documentation. Right now, I have to run experiments.

Have fun :)


From: David Lowndes on
>So back in the days the Windows SDK was made not only by header files but
>also by paper-based documentation and books?

Yep, a bookshelf full - something you could peruse in the reading room
and discover some useful API that you weren't aware of :)

From: BobF on

Mihai N. wrote:
>> name DWORD 30 DUP (1)
> ...
>> The syntax
>> of an identifier is apparently a Microsoft Corporate Secret.
> I would not expect to find this in the masm documents.
> Isn't this part of the Intel assembly language spec?
> All the options, and . directives (like .486, .code, .model flat),
> yes, that would be the assembler.
> Same for tricks like @@: to automatically generate label names.
> Anyway, you might have a point with the value of someone who
> knows assembly.
> With at bit of luck I might be able to land some well payed job
> later one, something like the Y2K boom for the Cobol guys :-D