flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
 Home   FAQ   Search   Register 
 Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
flat assembler > Main > FASM define macro from commmand line - "-d" switch

Goto page 1, 2  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
sid123



Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Posts: 340
Location: Asia, Singapore

FASM define macro from commmand line - "-d" switch

Does fasm have something like gcc's -D option?
For example if you want to define a macro from the compiler itself, you can do something like this:

Code:

gcc -DSOME_FLAGS -c code.c -o code.o
...
"code.c":
#ifdef SOME_FLAGS
    ....some more code....
#else
    ....some code...
#endif



It would be quite useful in fasm, since we could use automated build tools, than explicitly modifying an include header itself.

_________________
"Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire https://github.com/Benderx2/R3X
XD
Post 26 Dec 2014, 11:04
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15818
Location: Misner space

fasm has had it in the past but it was removed. It was controversial feature that broke the SSSO principal. If you have some older versions of fasm around you might be able to use one of those.

[edit]Version 1.67.34 (Feb 22, 2009) was the last to have the -d switch
Post 26 Dec 2014, 11:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
l_inc



Joined: 23 Oct 2009
Posts: 881

sid123
You could achieve the same effect using environment variables. You'd need a separate file for each elementary set of configuration options though. For being able to configure each flag independently you'd do smth. like this:

Code:
rem compile.bat
set SOME_FLAG1=some_flag1_enabled.inc
set SOME_FLAG2=disabled.inc
fasm.exe -m 1572864 project.asm




Code:
;project.asm
include 'config\%SOME_FLAG1%'
include 'config\%SOME_FLAG2%'

match ,some_flag1
{
   ;if flag1 enabled
   ;....some more code....
   rept 0 \{
}
match,
{
   ;if flag1 disabled
   ;....some code...
}




Code:
;some_flag1_enabled.inc
define some_flag1



Code:
;some_flag2_enabled.inc
define some_flag2



The file disabled.inc is just empty. Any possible adjustments to this approach are limited to your fantasy only. Smile

P.S. Here's btw. one possible adjustment, where you just echo the configuration options into an included file.

_________________
Faith is a superposition of knowledge and fallacy
Post 26 Dec 2014, 13:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15818
Location: Misner space

Tomasz had a different solution with FA:

http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=9948
Post 26 Dec 2014, 13:52
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 6825
Location: Kraków, Poland

I removed the -d option back then after being accused of breaking my own principles. But, in fact, the SSSO has always had somewhat blurry boundaries, because the line between what is considered a "source" and what is not is a fuzzy one. After all, I always interpreted the "source" to include the structure of files, environment variables, and even system time. To count some command line switches among the source structures is then an arbitrary choice, and it would not go against the core of SSSO principle: that one should not be forced to use additional settings like command line options or environment variables - that it should always be possible to define everything just by editing the source text. The existence of directives like FORMAT is what the SSSO was really about, and the removal of "-d" option was just me being misled by my own wording.

With this all in mind, I may actually bring back the "-d" switch, because for the future I plan to return to that original thought that was behind "SSSO" and not let the stricter wording be an actual rule.
Post 03 Jan 2015, 23:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
cod3b453



Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 617

When I'm sharing definitions between FASM and anything else I define a common file (FASM/text list/XML/...) that I then auto-generate FASM/C/C++/batch/shell/... headers from using either FASM [lots of files Evil or Very Mad; spectacular possibilties Twisted Evil], batch/shell scripts or build tool (if using something like cmake this can even do the conversion for you across platform with the string and file handlers, if it's simple). If you've already got definitions in a FASM/C header you may be able to retro fit using this using the same automated conversion though this is gernerally more tricky due to parsing.
Post 04 Jan 2015, 00:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
l_inc



Joined: 23 Oct 2009
Posts: 881

Tomasz Grysztar
I hope this decision was not induced by the kind of misuse of environment variables that I demonstrated in my previous post. Because if I remember correctly, the SSSO principle arised out of the problems related to not knowing the correct command line to make those damn sources compile. The -d switch might bring us back to such situations.

_________________
Faith is a superposition of knowledge and fallacy
Post 04 Jan 2015, 01:22
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 6825
Location: Kraków, Poland


l_inc wrote:
Tomasz Grysztar
I hope this decision was not induced by the kind of misuse of environment variables that I demonstrated in my previous post. Because if I remember correctly, the SSSO principle arised out of the problems related to not knowing the correct command line to make those damn sources compile. The -d switch might bring us back to such situations.

Even wihtout "-d" it was still possible to create a source that required some additional setup (in fact, requiring the INCLUDE variable to be correctly prepared in environment is very much like that). And if one really wanted to create a "compilation riddle", he could perhaps succeed no matter what.

The point should not be to strive to make it impossible for anyone to create such sources - my actual (and more realistic) objective was to make it possible to create sources that would be self-sufficient and assembled in the same way on any platform, and to make this an easy to use standard. Encouraging is better than enforcing, especially when such enforcing could lead to removal of many useful features.
Post 04 Jan 2015, 10:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
AsmGuru62



Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Posts: 1388
Location: Toronto, Canada

One of the things I use in my code are assertions.
So, to make the build without assertions - I must change a line in the source.
To bring assertions back, I have to edit the source again.
It would be nice to just use the command line to do it - instead of using environment variables.

My point is: SSSO principle is great, but not where assertions are involved.
Post 04 Jan 2015, 13:36
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15818
Location: Misner space

I am curious to know why you need to disable assertions?

I also use assertions but I keep them there for all time.
Post 04 Jan 2015, 13:41
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 6825
Location: Kraków, Poland

revolution's well-founded question aside, it should be possible to directly disable the assertions with the "-d" switch, try command like "fasm src.asm -dassert=times(0)".

The implementation of "-d" that I brought back does not support quoted values, so it is not possible to define values containing spaces.


Last edited by Tomasz Grysztar on 04 Jan 2015, 15:14; edited 1 time in total
Post 04 Jan 2015, 14:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15818
Location: Misner space

Is -d the same as "fix" or "equ"?
Post 04 Jan 2015, 14:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 6825
Location: Kraków, Poland

It's the same as "define".
Post 04 Jan 2015, 15:16
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
l_inc



Joined: 23 Oct 2009
Posts: 881

AsmGuru62
Your situation is really something absolutely not requiring the "-d" switch. An orthodox design for fasm sources would be to have different base files with configurations like the sources of fasm do: fasm.asm, fasmw.asm, fasmdll.asm, etc. Those basically share most part of the sources and define configurations. The same should be done in your case: myproject.asm + myproject_dbg.asm. The latter defines all the constants you need for your debug configuration and possibly includes myproject.asm. The compilation output depends then merely on the command line as you wish that: "fasm myproject.asm" or "fasm myproject_dbg.asm".

revolution

Quote:
I am curious to know why you need to disable assertions?


I assume AsmGuru62 means a kind of runtime assertions, which might induce performance penalties if included in a release configuration, but are desirable for unit testing or similar.

Tomasz Grysztar

Quote:
Even wihtout "-d" it was still possible to create a source that required some additional setup


Sure, but it was less obvious and more complicated. And hence discouraged by design.


Quote:
my actual (and more realistic) objective was to make it possible to create sources that would be self-sufficient and assembled in the same way on any platform, and to make this an easy to use standard. Encouraging is better than enforcing


And how exactly does "-d" switch encourage that?

_________________
Faith is a superposition of knowledge and fallacy
Post 04 Jan 2015, 16:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
AsmGuru62



Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Posts: 1388
Location: Toronto, Canada

I am not sure what assertions are we talking about.
I am talking about run-time assertions, like checking if index into array is within the current (dynamically allocated) range of the array.
Obviously, these checks are made for debugging and in released version - the checks should not be in place to make code faster/smaller.
Post 04 Jan 2015, 16:34
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
AsmGuru62



Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Posts: 1388
Location: Toronto, Canada

l_inc
I am not sure if keeping two source files is a good solution.
Post 04 Jan 2015, 16:38
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
l_inc



Joined: 23 Oct 2009
Posts: 881

AsmGuru62
If you have anything other than a tiny piece of code, then you have your project spread across multiple files anyway. It's just best practices.

Additionally if you share your code with other people, it should include all the information one needs to compile it in whatever configuration. And this would require you to have additional files anyway*: either by making a kind of a makefile with all the possible command lines included or by providing different base files. I would really prefer the latter solution.

* I personally dislike solutions that mix batch command files together with the source code.

_________________
Faith is a superposition of knowledge and fallacy
Post 04 Jan 2015, 16:47
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 6825
Location: Kraków, Poland


l_inc wrote:

Quote:
my actual (and more realistic) objective was to make it possible to create sources that would be self-sufficient and assembled in the same way on any platform, and to make this an easy to use standard. Encouraging is better than enforcing


And how exactly does "-d" switch encourage that?

It does not and I did not suggest that it does. The features like FORMAT do encourage to create self-sufficient sources. On the other hand, the removal of "-d" was an attempt at enforcing this, and in my opinion it was doomed to fail because by the same reasoning not only use of environment variables or time stamp, but even the INCLUDE directive in itself could be removed from language, and this never even crossed my mind (though I knew an example of assembler that depended upon having entire source in a single file).
Post 04 Jan 2015, 17:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 6825
Location: Kraków, Poland


AsmGuru62 wrote:
I am not sure what assertions are we talking about.

It appears that both revolution and me misunderstood your initial post. I thought you meant the applications of fasm's ASSERT directive, but these are compilation-time, not run-time assertions.
Post 04 Jan 2015, 17:24
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
l_inc



Joined: 23 Oct 2009
Posts: 881

Tomasz Grysztar

Quote:
It does not and I did not suggest that it does


I know. My question rather suggested that "-d" switch is not much of a help for whatever else.


Quote:
On the other hand, the removal of "-d" was an attempt at enforcing this


As you already explained, it's just a matter of definition whether you call something a part of a source or not. Hence the elusive meaning of the SSSO principle was probably a wrong motivation, but I think removing the "-d" switch wasn't such a bad idea, because this discouraged (without making impossible) rather inappropriate organizations of source code. Bringing the switch back again not only makes it possible but also encourages.

Or do you just disagree that it's much better to have different base files for different configurations (or a separate editable config.inc for other use cases) rather than to have in mind some unobvious possible configurations definable by putting something into the command line?

_________________
Faith is a superposition of knowledge and fallacy
Post 04 Jan 2015, 17:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Main index   Download   Documentation   Examples   Message board
Copyright © 2004-2018, Tomasz Grysztar.
Powered by rwasa.