I mean system() as in the function used to execute shell commands from within a program, but implemented in Fasm as a post-processor directive to aid in debugging(command to be executed would be determined pre-processor, but not executed until after assembly). I don't have a code example of how this could be implemented, but I'll look into it if anyone likes the idea.

Can you show some example code of where/how this would be useful? Would it break the SSSO principle?

Actually, I'm going to recant. Instead of a system directive, just an args directive. That was the only use I foresaw using the system directive for anyway, to pass args to my program so I don't have to debug with a batch file as I've been doing.

Maybe fasmw could have an option to add command line arguments when executing code?

I imagine it would be easier to add as a directive, no? Of course, I'm looking at it from the point of view that 1000 lines of parsing is easier to code than 100 of GUI coding. And would a Fasmw only solution leave out like half the users of Fasm. I believe I read somewhere on here that you don't use Fasmw, would you use this new directive?

You are right, I don't use fasmw. So I don't need to put command line options in my source, I use the real command line to run it.

What if someone posts some source code here and hides a "system" directive somewhere inside to start executing random commands in my machine when I compile?

Like I said just arguments would be all that's necessary(If that, the polls seem to suggest pretty strongly that I'm the only one who thinks this would be of any use). The arguments would only be arguments and couldn't be ran as commands.

Well there has only been 4 votes so far. Give it time.

Tyler
Firstly, what does it have to do with the compiler at all? To pass arguments is a task of the program, executing yours. If you don't use fasmw (me neither), so pass arguments by means of a program you use.
Secondly, if you'd like to store your arguments in your source (I personally can't understand this need), so do it by declaring some constant string instead of getting the real argument string. Eventually you can use conditional assembly depending on whether you want to get the real arguments or to use your predefined string.

Cause I'm reading the internal compiler forum to detect something interesting documentation / hints for change from x86 to Z80 support, what is please SSSO principle (in short words ) ?

I didn't find anything about this principle with Google or Wikipedia.

once i already suggested two such directives - one to execute before assembling, another - after assembling. it could be usefull for building win applications which often needs some stages. but there was no more interest for this...
personaly i'm using IDE, hence i do not care about it too much

> it could be usefull for building win applications which often needs some stages.

UPX ???

PS: deletion failed. File is in use.

Now I found in FASM documents that SSSO is Same Source, Same Output defined by Tomasz.
Maybe somebody has to add this semantic to wikipedia.

By the way, no more documents to read.
All I found I read from A to Z.
So now I try to change instruction set.

Maybe I can write a tutorial how to do if successful.