Significant Pure Assembler Application In MASM ?
in [ASM]
|
Prev: aeBIOS Test Request
Next: CMOVcc vs. Jcc
From: Betov on 8 Oct 2007 06:33 Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> �crivait news:4709F6C8.F0138453 @unibwm.de: > Betov wrote: >> Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> �crivait > >> > if Linux want to be a replacement for a mainstream OS like >> > Windows, there has to be a version with a bundled graphics interface >> > (by the OS and not by the distribution). >> >> Yes. Do you think a GTK bet could be wise? > > I don't know anything, but I think Linus refuses to add the graphical > subsystem to the core OS and X is much to slow for graphic games. I > don't know whether GTK works with OpenGL. Maybe i should rephrase my question... At a backward compatibility point of view, do you think that GTK could be considered evoluated enough for become the can't do without part of the OS, for example and particulary, for the commercial apps, that should in the end rely on something. As i am used to say: We cannot program for an OS that does not exist. So, snatching up at GTK could maybe do and help at stopping the bulshits... About "OpenGL", i seem to recall having read somewhere that GTK uses it. To be verified... Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Rod Pemberton on 8 Oct 2007 06:37 <rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu> wrote in message news:1191792086.074736.9910(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > 1) HLA which, according to recent posts, uses FASM whose syntax is derived > > from NASM. > > Maybe recent posts by Rene. Surely you don't believe what he has > written. > And if you're going to talk about what happens *inside* HLA, which no > one ever sees, don't forget that HLA also produces MASM code and MASM > is still the most commonly-used back-end for HLA. This may change, but > that's irrelevant because your second comment -- FASM syntax is > derived from NASM -- is not true at all. > .... > FASM syntax is derived from NASM -- is not true at all. Really? I'd say the following _proves_ otherwise. Simon Tatham says: 1) "I've got a converter somewhere that converts AT&T style assembly code into TASM Ideal mode input." 10/4/95 2) "NASM grew out of a discussion on comp.lang.asm.x86 a year or two ago." 10/18/96 Tomasz Grysztar says: 1) "...that the syntax I've chosen for fasm, was primarily imitating the one I was using when programming with TASM..." 2) "TASM offered two modes, with different syntaxes, ... and the second one called Ideal mode." 3) "...I've followed the NASM in interpreting the square brackets as a variable..." 4) "...another feature taken from NASM, which is that any operand can be preceded with size operator..." I.e., "TASM ideal"+3+4 == NASM syntax. > > 4) LCC, which now has at least a half dozen ports, most of which use NASM > > as a backend. > > (LCC, LCC-Win32, LCC-Linux32, Pelles C, RadiOS LCC, "LCC-Q3VM" for > > Quake3) > > As for point one, I'm not counting intermediate code generation by > compilers here. Well, that distorts reality in your favor doesn't it? By that logic, for the code that is compiled by HLA, HLA's syntax is used exclusively and FASM's syntax isn't used at all... What a benefit it is to you that you get to choose what it is and isn't counted. Isn't that called a biased opinion? > Oh, and please provide me the reference to Pelles C producing NASM > code for the back end. I was unaware of this, and given that Pelle now > has his own (roughly MASM compatible) assembler, I'd expect him to > switch to that if he isn't generating object-code directly (which I > thought LCC did). > I never said that. I never once said that all the ports I listed all use NASM. I said there _are_ a half dozen ports (which I listed for you...) _most_ of which use NASM as a backend (and most do...). Rod Pemberton
From: Rod Pemberton on 8 Oct 2007 06:42 <rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu> wrote in message news:1191792627.070020.319540(a)19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 7, 6:21 am, Betov <be...(a)free.fr> wrote: > > santosh <santosh....(a)gmail.com> �crivaitnews:fea5b9$tks$1(a)aioe.org: > > > > 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. > > Note, Rene, that PD *is compatible* with the GPL. Ah, careful there. You should've stated that the FSF claims PD is compatible with the GPL. From conversations with my IP law attorney brother and Internet searches, I'd say the US laws don't seem to agree with the FSF's opinion. The US laws require the PD code not be copyrighted again (term copyrights) since it was copyrighted once already, by law and treaty, prior to release to PD. Also, US laws only apply a copyright to the _entire_ work. That is important. The US Supreme court has stated that a derivative of a copyrighted or previously copyrighted work is only copyrightable if it is sufficiently different from the original to be considered "unique" in it's own right. Making a trivial modification to PD code and slapping on a GPL/LGPL on it is technically a violation of the Supreme court's decision. The GPL community seems to be getting away with this solely because neither the original author nor anyone in the PD is preventing the copyright claims by suing them. But, it's possible that someone, say MS, could sue on behalf of the PD. It's wise, IMO (since I'm not an attorney...), to treat PD code as copyrighted and not mix it with other copyrighted code. Rod Pemberton
From: Rod Pemberton on 8 Oct 2007 07:05 <rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu> wrote in message news:1191792450.274381.120450(a)50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > There are several reasons for choosing FASM output: > > 1. FASM is *much* faster than NASM. This, of course, impacts the speed > of an HLA compilation. > 2. At the time I needed a "freely distributable" assembler. FASM fit > the bill and FASM's syntax was closer to what HLA was emitting than > was NASM's, so it made more sense to use FASM. > 3. FASM was under active development at the time, NASM was not. > 4. Tomasz has provided excellent support for FASM. When I've needed > something, he's either modified the compiler or provided a macro that > satisfied my needs -- with NASM, I would have had to figure out the > code myself. > Since an assembler usually outputs binary from assembly, why is HLA using FASM to produce binary? It tends to lend credence to Betov's complaint that HLA is just a preprocessor for a real assembler. > When I've needed something, he's [Tomasz] ... provided a macro that satisfied my needs. Are you implying that you can't code assembly for assemblers other than HLA? I find that to be strange since a portion of your projected self-worth seems to be based on your intellectual grasp of language syntax. Rod Pemberton
From: Betov on 8 Oct 2007 07:14
"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have(a)nohavenot.cmm> �crivait news:fed147$hvs$1(a)aioe.org: > Simon Tatham says: > > 1) "I've got a converter somewhere that converts AT&T style assembly > code into TASM Ideal mode input." 10/4/95 > 2) "NASM grew out of a discussion on comp.lang.asm.x86 a year or two > ago." 10/18/96 > > Tomasz Grysztar says: > > 1) "...that the syntax I've chosen for fasm, was primarily imitating > the one I was using when programming with TASM..." > 2) "TASM offered two modes, with different syntaxes, ... and the > second one called Ideal mode." > 3) "...I've followed the NASM in interpreting the square brackets as a > variable..." > 4) "...another feature taken from NASM, which is that any operand can > be preceded with size operator..." Many thanks for restoring history's facts, in the face of this swindler, who seems to believe that nobody knows of what is what. Betov. < http://rosasm.org > |