Significant Pure Assembler Application In MASM ?
in [ASM]
|
Prev: aeBIOS Test Request
Next: CMOVcc vs. Jcc
From: Betov on 7 Oct 2007 09:21 santosh <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> �crivait news:fea5b9$tks$1(a)aioe.org: > Rod Pemberton wrote: > > [debate about whether NASM is/was suitable as a back-end for HLA] > > I think Randall has mentioned on several occasions that NASM was not > powerful enough for his HLA _when_ he was developing the latter, IIRC > sometime during the mid-90s, when NASM was in it's infancy. > > IIRC he did agree that NASM, as it stands now, *is* good enough as a > back-end to HLA. Why then he chose to bolt-in FASM is rather confusing. For you, maybe. If you ignore the fact that Master Pdf always was a leader of the Anti-Gpl Mouvement, you cannot understand. See, for example his absurd claims saying that PD is *more* than GPL, and try to understand what this means. By the way, dispiting his very special propaganda methods, including, for example the beginning of the selling, many years before having written the very first line, during the "mid-90s", nobody ever heard of this criminal, in the area of the pioneers of the Assembly Rebirth. When NASM was in its infancy, Master Pdf was nicely sleeping on his DOS laurels, while the others were doing all of the hard job. True that NASM was not usable, at that time. But HLA did not exist, at all, either. Nowadays, the story is different: The one and only thing that matters to this individual is his reputation. If he needs to convert to the GPL for selling himself, keep 100% that he will do so. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 7 Oct 2007 09:36 santosh <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> �crivait news:fealgi$ibr$1(a)aioe.org: > the ".deb" Format >> of the Ubuntu stuffs, seems to be Code-Only. > > It's just a package format like ZIP. It can contain source too. Probably, but the one coming with the Ubuntu Synaptic manager do not seem to do that netively. Which is a rather (surprisingly) good thing considering backward compatibilities. > BTW, Linux _can_ run very old a.out binaries. a.out was the first > executable format for Linux, (and lots of UNIXes), and was replaced by > ELF with version 1.2. But if you compile your kernel with a.out support > added, then you can still run these old executables. Do not joke me. > What's more Linux can run DOS files from the early 80s through DOSEmu. > Can Windows run ELF or a.out? I suppose yes. I never took a look but there exist Linux emulators for Windows. And then? Somebody even wrote a "NES emulator for Windows", with RosAsm: < http://nessie.emubase.de/ > Does this mean that Windows is "Nes-Able"? Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Rod Pemberton on 7 Oct 2007 10:02 "santosh" <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:fealgi$ibr$1(a)aioe.org... > What's more Linux can run DOS files from the early 80s through DOSEmu. > Can Windows run ELF or a.out? > Daniel Borca's DJELF is a version of DJGPP produces ELF. So, I'd suspect that DOS will run ELF. LINE (Line Is Not an Emulator) ran ELF binaries on Win98. But, that project died and didn't have a POSIX layer. So, important commands like dd and fdisk couldn't write to any device, like raw disks, which wasn't supported by Win98. It's possible that CoLinux or UMLWin32 will run ELF for Windows. But, I don't know for sure. Rod Pemberton
From: Rod Pemberton on 7 Oct 2007 10:02 "santosh" <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:fea1pr$j5n$1(a)aioe.org... > I don't know about ease of configuration, (though things are _vastly_ > improved since the early days, I admit that some configuration issues > still are obscure to sort out), but as for stability, I found no > difference between Linux and Windows NT. They are both very hard to > crash and are very stable. > > You and Betov seem to have the gift of crashing Linux everytime you put > your finger on it? > I'll admit newer Windows like XP crash less, but it also seems to thrash, have spontaneous uncontrollable high cpu usage, random high disk usage, right at the same places where it'd just crash before. If you reboot without waiting 15 minutes, it "restores" your settings from the prior boot instead of your changes from the last boot. I figured this out from numerous reinstalls with reboots of Norton 360 which kept "losing" the settings. But, as for it being robust, my mother crashed XP seven times the first week. She kept getting crashes about once a month for a year. Most of these crashes seemed to go away after a new video driver was released for her machine. But, about a month ago, after three or so years of XP (now updated to SP2), she crashed XP again getting a cryptic blue screen that said to contact MS. If my almost computer illiterate mother can crash XP SP2 semi-regularly, then I'm not sure how it can be called robust. I've also experienced many odd problems with XP SP2 with "invasive" software like Norton 360. Things like a hard lockup after XP attempting to increase the size of the system swap files. As for Linux, it still doesn't support one or two pieces of hardware on every one of the six or seven PC's I own. Linux's EXT2 filesystem seemed to crash and corrupt once a week. Rod Pemberton
From: Rod Pemberton on 7 Oct 2007 10:03
"Betov" <betov(a)free.fr> wrote in message news:XnF99C29B1406939betovfreefr(a)212.27.60.40... > "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have(a)nohavenot.cmm> �crivait > news:fea506$sob$1(a)aioe.org: > > > But, hutch-- wasn't concerned?... And, hutch-- claims he was somehow > > able to receive permission to do what the well renowned RH couldn't > > receive permission to do? Most interesting. ;) > > > What is the most funny to me, is the second shot of the joke: > > HLA being nothing but a front-end, the more this front-end > is expecting from its own back-end, the more it achieves > into the final question: > > "What is this front-end doing?". If it is just reversing the > members of an Instruction and obfuscating Assembly with an > absurd notation, why all of this stuff? > You've got a point. Once you've downloaded FASM, HLA's backend, just what do you need HLA for? You've now got an assembler, and if you want high level functionality there is always C, correct? I take you're implying it's just a fanciful assembly preprocessor and that it's not a complete high level language like C with an assembler as a backend? Rod Pemberton |