Index
> Main > Current documentation completeness? (FASM.PDF)Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
| Author |
|
|
l_inc 18 Jan 2012, 16:11
rohagymeg
I don't know, why local inhabitants gave a such on my opinion aggressive response, but you're right. Fasm's official documentation still lacks many things, that you only can find within this board. E.g., fasm's standard macro if supports also generation of signed comparison with the keyword signed, but you won't find this feature anywhere in the documentation. Besides, fasm's preprocessor since version 1.69 supports calculations based on the rept-directive (very important and very useful feature in some cases), and the most official documentation of this feature is this forum's post which is not even sticky. There are also some minor properties, that you can only find out empirically rather than reading the official documentation. |
|||
18 Jan 2012, 16:11 |
|
|
revolution 18 Jan 2012, 17:31
l_inc: You are welcome to help out and submit a proposed change to the fasm text.
|
|||
|
18 Jan 2012, 17:31 |
|
|
shutdownall 18 Jan 2012, 17:58
typedef wrote:
What comments you are talking about ? The non-existing ? 
The only kind of help is the name of labels and variables. But this will not provide information about structures used internally. Yes you can step through the code and with the time you learn about it but this is really a time spending process. typedef wrote:
I will do soon.  |
|||
|
18 Jan 2012, 17:58 |
|
|
l_inc 18 Jan 2012, 19:41
revolution
1. Is the latex source of the documentation (it seems to be created with latex) available for public access? 2. I believe to know at least one reason, why the preprocessor computation capability is still not documented. The reason seems to be a little inconsistency in numbers processing mentioned here. I suppose, the author may have some adjustment plans regarding the extended capabilities of the rept directive. 3. Unfortunately my student's life does not allow me to abandon my current study-related time consuming projects I'm engaged in. That's not a problem to add one more item to the hundreds others in my FIFO todo-list, but it's not a matter of observable time to accomplish it. With my last post I was just answering the original topic question rather than reproaching someone for documentation lacks. |
|||
|
18 Jan 2012, 19:41 |
|
|
GhostXoPCorp 21 Jan 2012, 08:33
Quote: That's not a problem to add one more item to the hundreds others in my FIFO todo-list Thats alot of compilers, you guys tag team in their forums? Quote: Unfortunately my student's life does not allow me to abandon my current study-related time consuming projects Bullshit. You just posted on the forum.
Add what you believe is needed, surely any help offered is more then appreciated in my opinion. Don't like what we have now? Go fix it! Maybe your opinion on what it should be is better then what it is now, and if it is, good job and thanks a bunch, we will all be happy you did 
..but if we don't like it you will know. _________________ Oh that divide overflow. Just jumps out of the bushes every time to scare the day lights out of me. |
|||
|
21 Jan 2012, 08:33 |
|
|
forge 18 Feb 2012, 09:15
Without making any comment about the completeness of the documentation,
I will say that it is somewhat scattered, and that the threads on the forum especially regarding the macro instructions, add some clarity to the manual. Has anyone considered adding a wiki? (yes, i searched )
Thanks! |
|||
|
18 Feb 2012, 09:15 |
|
|
adroit 25 Feb 2012, 02:17
I agree. There is lack of documentation on FASM internally, but I honestly can't blame Tomasz for this, because documenting such a complex software is difficult to maintain, much less there are at least three documentation: source code documentation, programmer's manual, assembler internals, (and if necessary, user manual). As forge suggested, a wiki, imho, would do just find. Everyone can contribute since we are so eager to have internal doc, as am I
 |
|||
|
25 Feb 2012, 02:17 |
|
|
l_inc 25 Feb 2012, 23:40
I support the wiki idea. That should not be too hard. IMHO it should be started by a trusted member like Tomasz Grysztar or revolution or [you name him/her] by means of partial copy-pasting (with restructuring) the existing data from the trusted sources like the pdf from the fasm package, these pages and even this post. Then I would also probably add a couple of articles and useful macro samples.
|
|||
|
25 Feb 2012, 23:40 |
|
|
idle 26 Feb 2012, 06:24
Do you need a more structured FAQ with Wiki?
Where the info come from: this/those forums etc sources - i suppose. You are just too lazy to use search button or google. No serious but true. |
|||
|
26 Feb 2012, 06:24 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 26 Feb 2012, 11:51
The wiki is not a new idea. But it needs someone to give it the necessary initial intertia.
|
|||
|
26 Feb 2012, 11:51 |
|
|
bubach 27 Feb 2012, 00:22
I suggest using
http://www.pmwiki.org/ With maybe some of these skins: http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/Cookbook/EvolverSkin http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/Cookbook/GraynessSkin http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/Cookbook/MarathonSkin + Customizations to fit the fasm main page and forum in color and such. I could even host a "try" on asmhackers.net Only problem with a diffrent hosting is that you can't use something to connect the log in from the forum, like this: http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/Cookbook/AuthPhpbb2Sso |
|||
|
27 Feb 2012, 00:22 |
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2 < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|