Index
> Compiler Internals > END directive |
| Author |
|
|
vid 07 Nov 2010, 14:48
IIRC ASCII EOF character should work (IMO a stupid DOS legacy)
|
|||
07 Nov 2010, 14:48 |
|
|
revolution 07 Nov 2010, 14:52
I didn't think fasm has such a feature. match +,- {...} can also be used to disable things but you need to backslash-escape any internal '}'.
BTW: There are many editors out there that can auto-comment out lines. The editor I use (Notepad2) uses CTRL-Q to comment/uncomment all currently selected lines. |
|||
|
07 Nov 2010, 14:52 |
|
|
SeproMan 07 Nov 2010, 15:22
vid,
Neat trick! However the editor I'm using (Norton Editor) does not allow the insertion of ASCII symbol 1Ah. Do you know of an editor that does? |
|||
|
07 Nov 2010, 15:22 |
|
|
vid 07 Nov 2010, 15:35
for what OS?
|
|||
|
07 Nov 2010, 15:35 |
|
|
SeproMan 07 Nov 2010, 15:43
1. MS-DOS
2. Windows98 |
|||
|
07 Nov 2010, 15:43 |
|
|
vid 07 Nov 2010, 18:50
Well, both are too old for me to give you answer. My advice is to keep notes in separate file from sources, and to move on to newer OSes.
|
|||
|
07 Nov 2010, 18:50 |
|
|
SFeLi 08 Nov 2010, 15:03
SeproMan, fasmw works perfectly under 98 and allows insertion of EOF character (Alt+026).
|
|||
|
08 Nov 2010, 15:03 |
|
|
rugxulo 08 Nov 2010, 15:56
vid wrote: IIRC ASCII EOF character should work (IMO a stupid DOS legacy) DOS Defender, to the rescue!!! Bah, you young punks and your crazy misconceptions. (Actually vid's only a few years younger than me, heheh, and he's quite smart ... usually. But he's wrong here, his bias is showing.) Ctrl-Z is a CP/M legacy from when the OS had no idea where the end of the file was. (MS-DOS [originally known as PC-DOS] was originally just a cheaper CP/M clone [API only] for IBM's 16-bit IBM PC 5150 using an Intel 8088 [same as 8086 but cheaper, slower, 8-bit compatible external data bus, I think].) Not even all DOS tools are crippled with this misfeature either. A bigger compatibility issue (besides the silly CRLF vs. LF) is that there are separate binary and text modes ("rb" and "r" in C parlance), which many *nix nerds ignore. "Too old" is funny, esp. since they are younger than you, vid. (FreeDOS 1.0 came out in 2006, kernel 2039 last year. There are other DOSes too besides MS-DOS, but FreeDOS is more active [barely], AFAICT.) "Move on" to newer OSes is funny too, esp. when you don't even know what hardware he's using or what apps he needs. There are three ways to enter a Ctrl-Z, nay, four, when using DOS or Win98: 1). edit mytext.txt (note that these don't have to be capital letters) blahblahblah Ctrl-P Ctrl-Z FASM rocks Alt-F S Alt-F X WinXP> type mytext.txt (says "blahblahblah" only!) 2). (at prompt, sometimes works elsewhere) Ctrl-Z 3). (at prompt) F6 4). (at prompt, usually works elsewhere) hold Alt + (numpad) 2 + 6 (0x1A = 26) My work here is done! (... flies away ...) |
|||
|
08 Nov 2010, 15:56 |
|
|
vid 08 Nov 2010, 19:38
rugxulo wrote: Ctrl-Z is a CP/M legacy from when the OS had no idea where the end of the file was. (MS-DOS [originally known as PC-DOS] was originally just a cheaper CP/M clone [API only] for IBM's 16-bit IBM PC 5150 using an Intel 8088 [same as 8086 but cheaper, slower, 8-bit compatible external data bus, I think].) Not even all DOS tools are crippled with this misfeature either. Touche, but I meant direct ancestor, which for FASM was DOS (or maybe the Tomasz's own OS?). Quote: A bigger compatibility issue (besides the silly CRLF vs. LF) is that there are separate binary and text modes ("rb" and "r" in C parlance), which many *nix nerds ignore. libc stream I/O under text mode does anything else than CRLF<->LF translation (on Win)? Funny, I never thought it would obey ASCII control chars. Quote: "Too old" is funny, esp. since they are younger than you, vid. (FreeDOS 1.0 came out in 2006, kernel 2039 last year. There are other DOSes too besides MS-DOS, but FreeDOS is more active [barely], AFAICT.) "Move on" to newer OSes is funny too, esp. when you don't even know what hardware he's using or what apps he needs. Too old, because (like almost everyone) I stopped using them aeons ago. I did my share of DOS and Win9X development too, but I simply don't remember what editors I used did on those chars. Last edited by vid on 09 Nov 2010, 09:29; edited 1 time in total |
|||
|
08 Nov 2010, 19:38 |
|
|
rugxulo 08 Nov 2010, 20:15
vid wrote:
First of all, there is no "it", there are several. And no, I don't think it does, just saying ... it's yet another stumbling block for *nix-only purists. Quote:
It wasn't that long ago! Only since 2006 did MS (and Firefox) drop Win9x support. And only since a year or two did Cygwin dump Win9x (and only then for better Unicode support). It wasn't truly that long ago, at least in my mind, when you were coding para512, your ss.com Sudoku solver, DOS tutorial, etc. But I guess you think it's not "cool" enough anymore. I'm not saying never use other stuff, just remember that some useful things can still be done on "old" hardware / software / etc. P.S. Your quote didn't work, left a bunch of crud in your post.  |
|||
|
08 Nov 2010, 20:15 |
|
|
vid 09 Nov 2010, 09:35
rugxulo wrote: It wasn't that long ago! Only since 2006 did MS (and Firefox) drop Win9x support. And only since a year or two did Cygwin dump Win9x (and only then for better Unicode support). It wasn't truly that long ago, at least in my mind, when you were coding para512, your ss.com Sudoku solver, DOS tutorial, etc. But I guess you think it's not "cool" enough anymore. I'm not saying never use other stuff, just remember that some useful things can still be done on "old" hardware / software / etc. para512 IMO was quite cool, ss.com wasn't, but both were developed (relatively) long after I stopped Win9X. I don't even remember that DOS tutorial, so that might have been during Win9X times. By chance, right today I am giving 2nd part of "intruduction to x86 machine code and assembly" talk at local geek meeting. Starting teaching Asm in DOS real mode is something that I consider a bad decision today, due to need to understand concepts no longer utilized outside ring0 development (segments mostly). "Flat" world of 32-bit Windows / Linux usermode assembly is so much easier to understand for newb. Quote: P.S. Your quote didn't work, left a bunch of crud in your post. Fixed, thanks for warning. |
|||
|
09 Nov 2010, 09:35 |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|