NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
in [ASM]
|
Prev: announce: my very first disassembler now available (GPL)
Next: Win32 non blocking console input?
From: Rod Pemberton on 4 Sep 2008 12:16 "Frank Kotler" <fbkotler(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:g9ot2a$fjq$1(a)aioe.org... > Well, that's the question. Is "lar eax, bx" mismatched? Is "lar eax, > ebx"? (Nasm currently accepts both) Just an FYI, Nasm64developer said (bugtracker): "The assembler permits 16/32/64-bit src registers -- purely for courtesy reasons." Do I need to file another bug report? That's clearly incorrect according to Intel's documentation for 64-bit mode which only allows a 32-bit source. Now, given the ambiquity of AMD's documentation, it might be correct for AMD cpu's. Someone complained that LAR was broken and they (Nasm64developer and HPA) fixed *BOTH* LAR and LSL for the assembler, under BR 1828866 "lar instruction broken": "I upgraded from 0.98.39 to 0.99.06-20071101," "and this line no longer works:" "lar ecx,ebx" "error: invalid combination of opcode and operands" Is that a "courtesy," or a "bug-fix"... ;-) Rod Pemberton
From: Robert Redelmeier on 4 Sep 2008 14:17 Rod Pemberton <do_not_have(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote in part: > "Frank Kotler" <fbkotler(a)verizon.net> wrote in message >> You asked earlier in this thread if I believed this "just >> because Nasm64developer said so". Yes, pretty much... > Without identity I can't share your belief... I doubt even with identity I'm be willing to totally suspend evaluation. >> > PS. Who is Nasm64developer? >> I wish I could tell ya, but he wishes to remain anonymous. > > That's his personal choice. I respect that. But, his choice > to be anonymous in a forum or newsgroup is very different to > me from being anonymous in an open source project. In the > later, he loses almost all credibility with me. There is > no way to know if he's respectable or disreputable, etc. Losing credibility-by-past-performance is one clear cost to anonymity. It is only high if you rely upon it. I vastly prefer clear arguments supported by verifiable data. Then it does not matter who is making them. Code is a pretty good example. And if you doubt the data or frequencies, they should be pretty easy to verify with a debugger or profiler. -- Robert
From: Frank Kotler on 4 Sep 2008 15:56 Rod Pemberton wrote: > "Chuck Crayne" <ccrayne(a)crayne.org> wrote in message > news:20080903160844.5c5238b1(a)thor.crayne.org... >> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 09:47:15 -0400 >> "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote: >> >>> "1. For all loads (regardless of source or destination sizing) only >>> bits 16-0 are used. Other bits are ignored." >> Other than the obvious typo, > > Typo? I don't see a typo. One must understand the dash "-" means > "through". BTW, this was cut-n-paste from an Intel .pdf. So, if there is > some "typo" it is Intel's, not mine as implied... So this describes a 17-bit operation? Must be, sez so in the manual... :) Best, Frank
From: Steve on 4 Sep 2008 16:03 Frank Kotler <fbkotler(a)verizon.net> writes: >Jim Carlock wrote: >> >> Define "older processor". > >Well... 386 would be nice. Maybe 486... Rod posted those older manuals >which clearly indicate that lar/lsl uses a 32-bit memory operand. They >were dated, but didn't mention which specific processors they applied >to. One of *them*. If a Pentium with the math bug counts and you can post some DOS code... Steve N.
From: Frank Kotler on 4 Sep 2008 16:34
Rod Pemberton wrote: > "Frank Kotler" <fbkotler(a)verizon.net> wrote in message > news:g9milg$vn1$1(a)aioe.org... >> You asked >> earlier in this thread if I believed this "just because Nasm64developer >> said so". Yes, pretty much... > > Without identity I can't share your belief... Understood. >>> PS. Who is Nasm64developer? >> I wish I could tell ya, but he wishes to remain anonymous. > > That's his personal choice. I respect that. But, his choice to be > anonymous in a forum or newsgroup is very different to me from being > anonymous in an open source project. In the later, he loses almost all > credibility with me. There is no way to know if he's respectable or > disreputable, etc. "By their acts shall ye judge them." > The crux is should an anonymous participant be allowed to have such a strong > influence in an open source project? Well, there's "anonymous" and then there's "anonymous"... "The person with access to SourceForge username 'nasm64developer'" is reproducible, at least. Even if we don't know his "Christian name", we "know who he is". .... > HPA has > posted quite a few bad and odd ideas also. Fork! Fork! :) Seriously, you're allowed to challenge his ideas, too! Bein' chief maintainer and all, he *does* have "final say", but we're *always* asking for feedback (and testing) from our users! We will soon be releasing 2.04rc1. The "rc" is for "release candidate". The idea is for our users to try it out on their projects, and make sure we haven't broken anything before we make a "release"... which might get picked up by "distros". > I'm just saying, where's the accountability when anonymity is involved? How > can one accept his claims if they can't be rebutted since we know nothing > about him or the sources he uses? How can one accept his claims if they > can't be discussed as his decisions seem to be final, especially when it > appears to be illogical or over rationalized? You can accept - or reject - his claims without knowing his right name, can't you? Do you reject Iczelion's tuts 'cause that's not his right name? Best, Whosis :) |