Index
> Main > What happened to "-d" switch in FASM? |
| Author |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 14 Oct 2009, 12:50
This feature was an unofficial one, and it has been dropped in the 1.67.x line.
Check out also this thread: http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=9948 |
|||
14 Oct 2009, 12:50 |
|
|
alorent 14 Oct 2009, 14:15
Thanks Tomasz for the link!
I was wondering why you don't want to have those switches inside FASM itself. I think that it's not bad to have an assembler/compiler which accepts multiple command line switches for all developers' needs. Or are you following a specific/defined standard? Thanks again! |
|||
|
14 Oct 2009, 14:15 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 14 Oct 2009, 14:29
alorent wrote: I think that it's not bad to have an assembler/compiler which accepts multiple command line switches for all developers' needs. Or are you following a specific/defined standard? Read about SSSO principle here: http://flatassembler.net/docs.php?article=design |
|||
|
14 Oct 2009, 14:29 |
|
|
revolution 14 Oct 2009, 14:35
alorent wrote: I think that it's not bad to have an assembler/compiler which accepts multiple command line switches for all developers' needs. Or are you following a specific/defined standard? Code: C:\fasm>fasm /G+ /B /m /qALL /O4 /c /C myProggy.asm flat assembler version 1.76.666 (666666 kilobytes memory) error: <some incomprehensible reason for failure> C:\fasm>fasm /G+ /B /M /qALL /O4 /c /C myProggy.asm flat assembler version 1.76.666 (666666 kilobytes memory) 11 passes, 12.3 seconds, 957344 bytes. Then comes the problem of different bits of code from different people all require different sets of switches to successfully compile. A conundrum that is impossible to solve without editing something and possibly breaking something else. |
|||
|
14 Oct 2009, 14:35 |
|
|
vid 14 Oct 2009, 16:44
Quote: Then comes the problem of different bits of code from different people all require different sets of switches to successfully compile. A conundrum that is impossible to solve without editing something and possibly breaking something else. Yeah, now you just need to create/edit couple of environment variables and possibly some configuration files too... way easier. Especially when those environment variables conflict with other compilers. Face it: SSSO is just a way to prevent idiots from abusing command line switches, that works quite well in most (simple) cases, but limits you in few (advanced) cases. |
|||
|
14 Oct 2009, 16:44 |
|
|
Borsuc 14 Oct 2009, 23:08
SSSO is one of the reasons FASM is better
 _________________ Previously known as The_Grey_Beast |
|||
|
14 Oct 2009, 23:08 |
|
|
rugxulo 15 Oct 2009, 00:28
Use the Win32 fa.exe if you really care.
|
|||
|
15 Oct 2009, 00:28 |
|
|
alorent 15 Oct 2009, 05:22
Thanks for the explanation.
The SSSO idea is pretty nice  |
|||
|
15 Oct 2009, 05:22 |
|
|
vid 19 Oct 2009, 22:54
Quote: SSSO is one of the reasons FASM is better You got me by your argumentation |
|||
|
19 Oct 2009, 22:54 |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|