flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Main > What happened to "-d" switch in FASM?

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
alorent



Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 201
alorent
Hi guys,

I have tried to search in the forum but don't find the answer.

In latest FASM versions, the "-d" command line parameter has been removed (for conditional compilation)

Has the "-d" switch changed its name or it's not supported anymore? Sad

Thanks!
Post 14 Oct 2009, 12:31
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7782
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
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
Post 14 Oct 2009, 12:50
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
alorent



Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 201
alorent
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!
Post 14 Oct 2009, 14:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7782
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
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
Post 14 Oct 2009, 14:29
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: 17635
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
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?
I would be dismayed to see this:
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.    
And then needing to post compiler instructions along with the code so that people can actually assemble it.

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.
Post 14 Oct 2009, 14:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
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.
Post 14 Oct 2009, 16:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
SSSO is one of the reasons FASM is better Razz

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 14 Oct 2009, 23:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
Use the Win32 fa.exe if you really care.
Post 15 Oct 2009, 00:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
alorent



Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 201
alorent
Thanks for the explanation.

The SSSO idea is pretty nice Wink
Post 15 Oct 2009, 05:22
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
SSSO is one of the reasons FASM is better

You got me by your argumentation Razz
Post 19 Oct 2009, 22:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< 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


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.