Is the 64-bit version of FASM planned?
If yes, what processors will be supported: Athlon64 or Itanium, or both?
I suppose, 64-bit operating systems can became the common place very soon.

I think Privalov is planning to work on AMD x86-64 extensions.

Yeah....it would be a VERY good thing if 64-bit support was added, both for AMD-64 and Itanium---not that there's really a way to test that code out right now (unless you are the owner of such a 64-bit processor machine), but, at some point, those will probably become commonplace and so needs to be added at some point:)

Foamplast: As I know, 64 bit version is planned, and is being made, it should be FASM version 2.

Itanium is new architecture (not extensions to x86 like AMD64), so I don't think fasm will support it. Besides, Intel is adding AMD64 compatibility to their chips.

neonz: I really know what are Itanium and AMD64. That was why I asked this question. As I think, adding AMD64 support is easier that Itanium, because AMD64 is an extension to x86. What I want from this topic is to get to know, will I have to right 3 programmes for 3 machines (x86, AMD64 and Itanium) in the nearest future or not, and what will be the importnace of FASM in this process?

And I'm saddend by the fact that windows API hates me and that I can't write code for my processor. The reasons for the api hating me are those concerning SVGA programming. I like DJGPP but I would love to try these new instructions. Is there a 64 bit compiler that anyone knows of for the AMD64?

To Verthex:

Sure, there are some.

1) Platform SDK from Microsoft's website contains ias - Itanium assembler. They have Windows for AMD64, thus they probably have an assembler for it.

2) Every processor manufacturer should supply at least cross-assembler for it's processor. Try to visit AMD's website. I think they have an assembler.

The real question is "are these assemblers so good like FASM?"

And some another: Itanium has different command system. So then, it has different assembler. AMD64 is the extension of IA-32, that's why it is more easier to add AMD64 support to FASM.

I hope AMD64 will be the most widely used solution, because I don't want to write a number of assembler programs for a number of processors. It is the only place where assembler is more weak than High Level Languages.

I'm sure FASM is the best since its free, I did find GCC from the GNU project to support AMD 64. its under prcessor support. Right now I just want to learn the instructions to get a hold on using them, not really worried about speed. When FASM is AMD64 capable, I'll definitley use FASM.

I can't find the page, but IIRC the only assemblers that support AMD64 are MASM (latest version from the SDK/DDK), YASM and GAS (part of GCC). AFAIK AMD hasn't released their own, but instead worked with the GCC team on getting GAS up to speed.

I for one, can't wait until FASM supports AMD64. (Don't like MASM, hate GAS's AT&T syntax and that fact that GAS is a backend tool for GCC so it doesn't lead to itself to assembler coders, and YASM is a bit flakey).

Itanium is completely different from x86 or x86-64. It's not even CISC. I highly doubt Privalov will ever have the time or desire to write an assembler for it.

I would however like to see AMD64 support. I hacked in enough to let me play with it a little, but it would be nice to see it officially supported. It should be fairly easy to tack it on.

Ralph: may I have peak at you hack?

What is Itanium architecture offically known as? Is it a RISC design?

Yes, it is very similar to RISC. I can not tell whether Itanium has reduced set of commands or not, but at some points of view it is a RISC one: its has many registers (registers matrix) and conditional execution of commands.

EPIC (http://www.intel.com/products/server/processors/server/itanium2/)

It's what is known as VLIW ("Very Long Instruction Word").
This is totally different to RISC or CISC (and x86/IA-32). It is more like microprogramming or bit slices (if anyone can remember that far back!). If you want an assembler for it, you are probably stuck with gas (or the ias mentioned above)?

That was an interesting link that Chewy509 gave. How do all of you feel about the Itanium, do you think that it will give an avantage to programmers, or would you rather stay with x86 such as AMD64 ?

I've only downloaded and briefly looked through the IA64 manuals (they are available as PDF's from Intel, just like the x86 manuals are).

The Itanium is an extremely powerful CPU, and has a killer FPU (IIRC nothing manistream ie PPC, x86, Alpha, PA-RISC, SPARC, can bet it's FPU performance). However I don't believe that we will see it in the mass consumer market taking over the x86. IMHO it's going to be relegated to the same status as the POWER and SPARC chips, only used in HPC and high-end servers, with some high-end workstation use. x86 and PPC owns the mass consumer desktop market, and with the legacy that it brings, it'll be hard for any other architecture to crack the market.

From a programming point of view, it took a while to get my head around it (EPIC/VLIW). Initially I think we'll see poor performing code, however as time goes on, and a few tricks are learned, we'll see the performance that Intel has been boosting about. It's an interesting architecture...

As for moving to IA64 or moving to AMD64, I would choose AMD64. Simply because it has a larger share of the market, and it's more likely that I'll have an AMD64 box than a Itanium box. (IIRC AMD shipped 60,000+ Opteron's to 6,000 Itaniums last year).

In spite of that FPU, it seems that most people putting together supercomputers (or, rather, massively parallel processors) are using Opterons and not Itaniums!

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/DevelopWithAMD/0,,30_2252_9044,00.html
above is the compiler info for the 64 bit AMD. I prefer GNU gcc but Microsoft has one for about a hundred bucks I think, if you join MSDN. I wouldn't mind paying for flatassembler if it was kept up to date for both AMD and Intel. Such as SSE3 being the latest, I think.