flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Main > flat assembler 1.69.36-38

Goto page 1, 2  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7802
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
The first new release this year, it adds two new features. First is the new assert directive, which causes "recoverable" error when the given logical expression is false (the "recoverable" means that error is not signalized if it occurs in the intermediate passes). The "assert 0" idiom now officially replaces the old tricky "rb -1", and constructions like:
Code:
if top>=10000h
  rb -1
end if    
can now be simplified to:
Code:
assert top<10000h    

The second new feature is ability to provide default value for macro argument, which will get used when empty value is provided when macro is used. You do it like:
Code:
macro show value=-15
 { display '0'+value }

show
show 1    


EDIT: the 1.69.37 follows quickly, because I added one more new feature, discussed in the other thread. It is the "relativeto" operator, which allows to test labels for being any kinds of special values. In general, expression with "relativeto" is true when expressions on both sides of it differ only by some fixed value, for example if both are relocatable values with the same base address, or both have the same register as base, or both are absolute value.

Some examples of usage:
Code:
if mylabel relativeto 0
  dd mylabel xor 0xABCD ; this is just a number, I can do any computations on it
end if

if mylabel relativeto ebp
  offset_in_stack = mylabel - ebp
end if

if mylabel relativeto $
  jmp mylabel ; this jump will never generate relocation
end if

if mylabel relativeto some_external_array
  offset_in_array = mylabel - some_external_array
end if    

While implementing it, I also found and fixed a couple of small bugs, in some cases assembler did not signal incorrect usage of value while it should. Now it is more restrictive, but this should not break any normal sources - if you've got something that stopped to assemble and you think it's a bad thing, please let me know.

If you are interested what other plans for the fasm development I have - currently I only plan adding AVX2 support later this year, any other additions left for indefinite future. I decided that 1.70 milestone will some after AVX2 support is finished and tested, I apologize to those who expected 1.70 to have Mach-O, but that probably is not going to happen (in 1.71.x line, maybe).


Last edited by Tomasz Grysztar on 24 Feb 2012, 16:52; edited 1 time in total
Post 11 Feb 2012, 18:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
cod3b453



Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 619
cod3b453
This should clean my assert macros up nicely Cool I'm also glad this is possible:
Code:
x = 0

macro @dummy [a,b=x,c]
{
        db a,b,c
        x = x + 1
}

@dummy  1,,2,\
        3,,4; 01 00 02 03 01 04    
since it looks like it will simplify some of my more complicated macros.
Post 11 Feb 2012, 21:00
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
l_inc



Joined: 23 Oct 2009
Posts: 881
l_inc
cod3b453 wrote:
I'm also glad this is possible

Yes. But this seems to work only if the last argument in a group has no default value (a bug?). The following code results in the error "invalid macro arguments".
Code:
macro show [value=1] { db value}
show    
Post 11 Feb 2012, 21:18
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7802
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
I uploaded the quick fix, please re-download the package - the closing bracket is no longer taken to be a part of default value. And if you need default value containing "]" there, enclose the value in "<" and ">".
Post 11 Feb 2012, 21:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
mindcooler



Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Posts: 423
Location: Västerås, Sweden
mindcooler
Nice, I have recently run into a problem where I would need assertions.

And I recently had a macro where I wanted default arguments Smile
Post 12 Feb 2012, 00:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
SFeLi



Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 140
SFeLi
Tomasz Grysztar wrote:
I uploaded the quick fix

It still does not work when written this way:
Code:
macro show value=-15 { display '0'+value }    

Is it ok?
Post 13 Feb 2012, 15:11
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7802
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
That's another bug. Will be fixed by the next release I'm preparing.
Post 13 Feb 2012, 15:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
madmatt



Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 1045
Location: Michigan, USA
madmatt
Whatever you changed, effected the 'cinvoke' macro too. this line crashes my program.
Code:
cinvoke printf, <10,13,"IID_IXAudio2 - XAudio2 Creation Succeeded.",10,13>    
Post 13 Feb 2012, 19:27
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7802
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
It works correctly for me. Are you sure it is this line that is assembled differently for you?
Post 13 Feb 2012, 19:36
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7802
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
I edited the original post to include the 1.69.37 release information, since it comes so quickly after the previous one.
Post 13 Feb 2012, 20:31
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
madmatt



Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 1045
Location: Michigan, USA
madmatt
Tomasz Grysztar wrote:
It works correctly for me. Are you sure it is this line that is assembled differently for you?
It worked fine with 1.69.35, Began using 1.69.36 when the problem started, also:

1. Forgot to mention this is for 64bit cinvoke.
2. It seems to be crashing with the numbers before the quoted string.
Code:
cinvoke printf, <"IID_IXAudio2 - XAudio2 Creation Succeeded.",10,13> ;compiles fine    

_________________
Gimme a sledge hammer! I'LL FIX IT!
Post 13 Feb 2012, 21:04
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7802
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
Oh, right, that's one very important instruction which I dropped somehow.
I uploaded the correction.
Post 13 Feb 2012, 21:36
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
l_inc



Joined: 23 Oct 2009
Posts: 881
l_inc
Tomasz Grysztar
I'm not sure, how the introduced operation should work, but should the following code display "different base"? Because I expected to see the opposite option.
Code:
label abc at ebp+esp

if (abc-esp) relativeto ebp
 display 'same base',13,10
else
 display 'different base',13,10
end if    


Also the operation precedence and the commutativity are unclear. Is a relativeto b always the same as b relativeto a?
Post 13 Feb 2012, 21:36
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7802
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
l_inc wrote:
I'm not sure, how the introduced operation should work, but should the following code display "different base"?
It should not, that's another correction. Hmm, the fault is because of some legacy code that needs cleanup... Maybe later. For now I'm uploading the simple fix.

l_inc wrote:
Also the operation precedence and the commutativity are unclear. Is a relativeto b always the same as b relativeto a?
It is commutative, because when two values differ by constant amount, it works both ways. But there is one catch - "relativeto" works as a special construct for the parser, the same as "at" operator, which make it expect an expression after. This allows to write "label x at ebp" or "if x relativeto ebp" (otherwise you'd have to write "label x at +ebx" to force the expression phrase to get parsed), but if you write a lone register name as a first expression, the parser will make it a register lexical type, not expression, because it does not yet know that "relativeto" follows. That may be considered a bug, but I do not feel an urge to fix it right now.
Post 13 Feb 2012, 21:51
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
l_inc



Joined: 23 Oct 2009
Posts: 881
l_inc
Tomasz Grysztar
OK. Thank you.
Post 13 Feb 2012, 22:04
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
madmatt



Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 1045
Location: Michigan, USA
madmatt
Tomasz Grysztar wrote:
Oh, right, that's one very important instruction which I dropped somehow.
I uploaded the correction.

Seems to be fixed now, thanks!

_________________
Gimme a sledge hammer! I'LL FIX IT!
Post 13 Feb 2012, 22:20
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yoshimitsu



Joined: 07 Jul 2011
Posts: 96
yoshimitsu
Being able to give macro arguments default values sounds great!
Though, I guess I got to read that topic you linked to see usages for the new relativeto-operator, I can't think of any atm :s

Great work, Tomasz :)

Btw. There's a little typo in the changelog:
version 1.69.27 (Feb 13, 2012)
Post 15 Feb 2012, 04:22
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7802
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
yoshimitsu wrote:
Btw. There's a little typo in the changelog:
version 1.69.27 (Feb 13, 2012)
Hmm, I guess it's too late to correct it in Linux/Unix packages.
I promised to not modify them after 24 hours from release, since some distro packagings rely on checksums of files staying constant.
Post 15 Feb 2012, 13:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4242
Location: 2018
edfed
what can make fasm version become 1.70.00?
Post 15 Feb 2012, 20:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7802
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
edfed wrote:
what can make fasm version become 1.70.00?
See the end of first post.
Post 15 Feb 2012, 20:51
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

< 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.