Significant Pure Assembler Application In MASM ?
in [ASM]
|
Prev: aeBIOS Test Request
Next: CMOVcc vs. Jcc
From: hutch-- on 8 Oct 2007 07:28 smile, HAY Betov, Spare us the revisionist bullsh*t, you simply were not there when it happened and you were not part of it. You were just a parasite that tried to attach yourself to the coattails of the MASM lead resurrection of assembler 3 to 4 years after it had happened. Your notion of a rebirth is simply bullsh*t. > Also, as said in B_U_Asm, since the day one of SpAsm: > > "I began working on the RosAsm project in September 1998. > The very first version was written with Asm32. I begin > this history in July 2000"* Quoting your own bullsh*t does not help you here, you were not an authority back then, you are not one now. Come on Betov, come clean, you are just a bludger and a parasite trying to sach in on someone elses work.
From: Herbert Kleebauer on 8 Oct 2007 08:26 Betov wrote: > 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... Maybe you should ask in a linux group. I did this a year ago, but without much success: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.development.apps/browse_frm/thread/2c17c983165f27d4/2de83fa1b524e4bb?#2de83fa1b524e4bb
From: santosh on 8 Oct 2007 08:33 Rod Pemberton wrote: > > <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. The keyword here is "usually". A car usually runs on petrol. Does that mean battery operated cars are not cars?
From: santosh on 8 Oct 2007 08:42 Rod Pemberton wrote: > > <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$1(a)aioe.org: >> > >> > For you, maybe. If you ignore the fact that Master Pdf always was >> > a leader of the Anti-Gpl Mouvement, you cannot understand. See, >> > for example his absurd claims saying that PD is *more* than GPL, >> > and try to understand what this means. >> >> Note, Rene, that PD *is compatible* with the GPL. > > Ah, careful there. You should've stated that the FSF claims PD is > compatible with the GPL. From conversations with my IP law attorney > brother and Internet searches, I'd say the US laws don't seem to agree > with the FSF's opinion. > > The US laws require the PD code not be copyrighted again (term > copyrights) since it was copyrighted once already, by law and treaty, > prior to release to PD. Unless the producer of the works explicitly waives all copyrights and other rights. > Making a trivial modification to PD code and slapping on a > GPL/LGPL on it is technically a violation of the Supreme court's > decision. The GPL community seems to be getting away with this solely > because neither the original author nor anyone in the PD is preventing > the copyright claims by suing them. Are there many examples of the "GPL community" taking PD works and putting them under GPL/LGPL after trivial modifications? <snip>
From: santosh on 8 Oct 2007 08:51
Betov wrote: > santosh <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> �crivait news:feclhk$elk$1(a)aioe.org: > >> How exactly? Something like GTK is available wherever X is available. >> I think this fear of getting "locked in" is just paranoia. > > As you seem to be aware... does there exist something > like the Windows Debug APIs under Linux? Yes. The ptrace system call. This provides only "bare minimum" facility. Building something like the RosAsm debugger on top of this is likely to be a lot of work. See the link: <http://www.linuxmanpages.com/man2/ptrace.2.php> |