Survey
in [ASM]
|
From: john chung on 15 Mar 2006 09:43 I chose NASM b'cos that was the last assembler that I looked at for my unix porting that I will be commencing soon. It may not be a great choice but that was the last assembler that I checking on for writing OS stuff. FASM? Heard before but not sure on it's strengths. Can you provide some tips on why I should look at FASM? I am open to suggestion. I checked quickly but it does not seem to support FreeBSB? Not sure on this. Can someone clarify this? Looks like FASM support a lot more than NASM. I believe NASM still does not support 64bit....... thanks, john On 14 Mar 2006 18:39:33 -0800, "randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >johnzulu wrote: >> How many assemblers do you know and use? >> >> I personally use (MASM/TASM) and soon going to NASM. >> >> john > >I assume you're asking about x86 assemblers. >Personally, I *know* MASM, TASM, INCRA, OPTASM, Gas, and HLA. By >"know", I mean that I've written several non-trivial apps using these >assemblers. I've also *used* NASM, FASM, and RosAsm to varying levels >to check them out. > >I do have a question. Why are you choosing NASM over FASM? Not to >dissuade you or anything, but most people I see these days go for FASM >(as it is very similar to NASM, but more features in nearly every >respect) unless they need to work on some weird OS that FASM doesn't >support (last time I checked, I believe FASM supported Win32, Linux, >MacOS, and even the FASM home-grown OS [Minuet]). >Cheers, >Randy Hyde
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 15 Mar 2006 10:51 o//annabee wrote: > > > > I assume you're asking about x86 assemblers. > > Personally, I *know* MASM, TASM, INCRA, OPTASM, Gas, and HLA. By > > "know", I mean that I've written several non-trivial apps using these > > assemblers. > > Maybe you can proved links to these at least 6 non-trivial apps? http://webster.cs.ucr.edu Have fun. > > > I've also *used* NASM, FASM, and RosAsm to varying levels > > to check them out. > > This means for instance he pasted a Dictionary into RosAsm, and was pissed > that it failed to compile :) And more. I wasn't pissed. I could care less. I was just amazed at how crappy the quality control was on the assembler. Since then, I've come to realize that Rene doesn't know the first thing about testing software, so it should have come as no surprise. Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 15 Mar 2006 10:55 john chung wrote: > I chose NASM b'cos that was the last assembler that I looked at for > my unix porting that I will be commencing soon. It may not be a great > choice but that was the last assembler that I checking on for writing > OS stuff. FASM? Heard before but not sure on it's strengths. > Can you provide some tips on why I should look at FASM? I am > open to suggestion. Faster. More features. Still being actively supported. The user base is growing rapidly, though NASM still has a larger user base, NASM's user base is growing much more slowly. > > I checked quickly but it does not seem to support FreeBSB? You might try asking on the FASM board about plans for FreeBSD. I dimly recall some discussions about FreeBSD. Of course, it certianly runs under BSD if you have the Linux emulation enabled. And I'm *pretty* sure the object code you write can run natively under BSD (without emulation), though I'm not 100% sure about this (there might be *something* in the ELF file that tells FreeBSD it needs the Linux emulator, even if the object code itself makes no Linux calls). > Not sure > on this. Can someone clarify this? Looks like FASM support a lot > more than NASM. I believe NASM still does not support > 64bit....... I recall that *someone* had a 64-bit version of NASM. But it wasn't folded into the main release and I don't know if it's publically available. Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: o//annabee on 15 Mar 2006 20:09 P? Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:51:20 +0100, skrev randyhyde(a)earthlink.net <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net>: > > o//annabee wrote: >> > >> > I assume you're asking about x86 assemblers. >> > Personally, I *know* MASM, TASM, INCRA, OPTASM, Gas, and HLA. By >> > "know", I mean that I've written several non-trivial apps using these >> > assemblers. >> >> Maybe you can proved links to these at least 6 non-trivial apps? > > http://webster.cs.ucr.edu > Have fun. Can you be more spesific. I cant find anything like that there. I find chistians songs, a few reviews of some books, but I find no links to 6 non-trivial asm applications. > >> >> > I've also *used* NASM, FASM, and RosAsm to varying levels >> > to check them out. >> >> This means for instance he pasted a Dictionary into RosAsm, and was >> pissed >> that it failed to compile :) > > And more. > I wasn't pissed. I could care less. I was just amazed at how crappy the > quality control was on the assembler. Since then, I've come to realize > that Rene doesn't know the first thing about testing software, so it > should have come as no surprise. > > Cheers, > Randy Hyde >
From: Frank Kotler on 16 Mar 2006 01:49
randyhyde(a)earthlink.net wrote: .... >>Not sure >>on this. Can someone clarify this? Looks like FASM support a lot >>more than NASM. I believe NASM still does not support >>64bit....... > > > I recall that *someone* had a 64-bit version of NASM. But it wasn't > folded into the main release and I don't know if it's publically > available. There's a "nasm64developer", aka "Anonymous Coward", so there must be a "nasm64". It is *not* available to the public, AFAIK. I don't know what the state of it is, or when it *will* be available to the public. If "Mr. Coward" is who I think he is, he is *not* noted for hiding information away from the public, so I'm optimistic, but I don't know when. I think there are "others" involved - I think I recall him saying if "we" released it, "we" would have to support it... Very mysterious. As to the "survey", I'm pretty much a "one trick pony" - a "devout Nasmist". I've "used" a couple others, but not enough to evaluate 'em. But Fasm impresses me a lot! I have no overwhelming reason to switch (until I acquire a 64-bit machine). But if I were a beginner, I think I'd lean towards Fasm, for the 64-bit support, seeing no overwhelming reason not to. (Fasm is not GPL, if you care) Best, Frank |