[Poll] Whether it is necessary to add multi-byte NOPs instructions support?

Since it is standard and documented instruction of x86 architecture, FASM should support it.

Hunter, you should add something about what multi-byte NOP is (a reference to that thread would be enough).

what should be syntax for it? "nop 2" etc? I think that would be acceptable, and then i am for adding it.

Question is then, what to do in case when we don't have NOP version for given length, like "nop 354" use known ones to pad the length? or fill with 90h nops?

voted for 'Yes, FASM must support it' but I think the option should have been 'Yes, FASM should support it', 'must' makes it look like we who voted for it are not accepting other choice, clearly: it's up to Tomasz, but I'd like to see it in fasm.

MazeGen, ok! Here is it:

Since [ebx+esi+5] works I think that FASM should implement it instead of just generate NOPs like Table 4-1.

Hi Tomasz! Intel has updated manuals recently and added new instructions set - SSSE3 (Supplemental SSE3). Could you also add it to FASM for comleteness?

So this is it!
http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=5135

Now they are documented instructions

And thus they are now supported.

Thank you very much for SSSE3 support! The FASM is the BEST!
And what do you think about this poll and multi-byte NOPs support for completeness now? Maybe, The Time has come?

I voted yes because having all the available instructions makes it easier to use FASM when generating test files for disassemblers and emulators. If I see the instruction documented in the manual then I like to add it to my library of test procedures. With the direct availability in the assmbler it makes the test files clearer and cleaner.

It already was there, hoped you'd find it out by yourself.

Oh shucks, there's a version 1.67.10 now! Good work. This is a good thing.