Significant Pure Assembler Application In MASM ?
in [ASM]
|
Prev: aeBIOS Test Request
Next: CMOVcc vs. Jcc
From: santosh on 7 Oct 2007 04:40 Herbert Kleebauer wrote: > santosh wrote: > > >> It more than a "beginning." Tell me one reasonable thing that you can >> do with your Windows that I cannot do with my Ubuntu here. > > Try to execute a binary you generated with Linux ten years ago. Yes compile your kernel with a.out support added in. > In Windows I can execute DOS programs written twenty years ago > (and I hope MS will be forced by the user base to also include > 16 bit support in 64 bit Windows). Whatever. Why not also force them to support binaries written for the PDP, OS/360 and MULTICS? > For me Linux becomes an > alternative to Windows (as a desktop system) only if: > > 1. There is a version where they can guarantee that any BINARY > written for this version can be executed on any newer release > (for at least ten years). I think this guarantee is already there in practise. > 2. This also must be true for the graphics (multimedia) system. > This means, the OS and THE (we don't need more than one) graphics > system has to be unified like in Windows. Now you're talking like Betov. X Windows is universal under Linux and UNIXes. Integrating it into the kernel has not been done for obvious reasons. UNIXes run on a far wider variety of hardware than Windows and in situations where a GUI is not needed.
From: Betov on 7 Oct 2007 05:30 santosh <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> �crivait news:fea2h7$lds$1(a)aioe.org: > You have to start somewhere. All other parts of RosAsm exist _because_ > of, and in _service_ to, the core language and it's assembler. So > firstly a working assembler, (not full IDE), for Linux will enable you > gauge it's feasibility under Linux and whether enough user demand > exists. ? There is no difference in between a Linux Encoder and a Windows Encoder. Also, demembring RosAsm into components does not mean a thing. You probably fail to understand what the word "Integration" means and implies at an organization point of view. Without its Debugger, the RosAsm Assembler does not mean a thing. Without its Sources Editor, the RosAsm Debugger does not mean a thing. Without its Re-Assembler, the RosAsm Disassembler does not mean a thing... and so on. Also, there is no need of one another Assembler, and evidently not of the one inside RosAsm, which once stripped out would be quite a poor little thing, compared to FASM or NASM. The only problems coming with NASM and FASM, are that, NASM being written in C, it is not usable (for me - not for the other ones -), and that FASM being Anti-Gpl, cannot be used for anything (same parenthesis). > On the way you'll also learn all about ELF format. Mostly done. But there is no point with outputing ELFs under Windows. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Rosario on 7 Oct 2007 05:54 In data Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:13:22 GMT, Robert Redelmeier scrisse: >Charles Crayne <ccrayne(a)crayne.org> wrote in part: >> On 06 Oct 2007 07:48:22 GMT Betov <betov(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> Considering the various actual ones, is there some >>> probability for having, later, a Processor emulating, by >>> default, any other Processor as supported by the main OSes, >>> say, on a PC and a embeeded Phone? (So that porting from >>> here to there would no more exist). >> >> Technically possible, but economically unlikely. The current >> marketing requirements for chip design seem to be increasing the >> raw speed without a corresponding increase in power consumption. > >The "flagship" x86s from Intel and AMD certainly follow this. >They cannot increase electrical power much due to physical laws >such as heat removal and Ohm's law (current vs voltage drop). > >However, there are VIA and other embedded x86 CPUs around. >And the fabulous success of ARM points the way. Annual sales >in the 100s of millions, and ASP/mm2 probably well above all >x86 except the very top end. > >I could see a world with small stateless appliance boxes. >Walk up, plug in a memory stick and it boots your OS into >your execution and data environment. so the poor low level programmer have to rewrite the same programme each environments or he/she have or use a very high hll language like java ... i think it is better that hardware people has some consensus for a minimal cpu mode (30 to 50 instructions n� x registers of 8,16,32,[64?]bits registers, AND, OR, PUSH , JMPS, CALL, etc etc and fpu too) or a minimal enviromets () so define an assembly language for that cpu; so c or c++ compiler can produce assembly for that cpu and so to be portable by hex, and assembly programmers can have a cross cpu to program the same the Operative Systems people can define a set of command cross OS for doing "visual" programming all this because the cost of software seems bigger than cost of hardware so programs have to be maximus portable but possible this is an error, i write errors >-- Robert
From: Rosario on 7 Oct 2007 05:54 In data Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:03:10 +0200, Rosario scrisse: >so the poor low level programmer have to rewrite the same programme >each environments or he/she have or use a very high hll language like >java ... > >i think it is better that hardware people has some consensus for a >minimal cpu mode (30 to 50 instructions n� x registers of >8,16,32,[64?]bits registers, AND, OR, PUSH , JMPS, CALL, etc etc and >fpu too) > >or a minimal enviromets () > >so define an assembly language for that cpu; so c or c++ compiler can >produce assembly for that cpu and so to be portable by hex, and >assembly programmers can have a cross cpu to program > >the same the Operative Systems people can define a set of command >cross OS for doing "visual" programming > >all this because the cost of software seems bigger than cost of >hardware so programs have to be maximus portable > >but possible this is an error, i write errors wrong i think in the future cpu vendors will inprove the cpu so java p-code or C# p-code or phiton p-code is more fast the assembly programers will program in p-code
From: Frank Kotler on 7 Oct 2007 06:41
santosh wrote: .... > You and Betov seem to have the gift of crashing Linux everytime you put > your finger on it? If *you* were an OS, would you want Betov and Wannabee using you? Neither does Linux! :) Best, Frank |