flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
Index
> Macroinstructions > Questions to Tomasz: to make includes bitness independent? |
Author |
|
Tomasz Grysztar 07 May 2018, 13:11
ProMiNick wrote: Will it be good to make includes bitness independent(or CPU independent)? As for the proc macros, it is doable but is it really worth it? Perhaps if you were making some source that could be assembled to different architectures, but then you'd need to prepare lots of custom macros for your project anyway. ProMiNick wrote: Question 2: Are Thou planning to backport "macro ?"? ProMiNick wrote: Fasm1 is more faster than fasmg and less memory greedy, so for x86 assembly (exept macos) it is more preferable. However you probably do mean comparing the built-in instruction encoder of fasm 1 with the macro implementation of fasmg, then obviously the latter is going to use more resources. Perhaps something like an actual fasm 2 is really what you're looking for. After all, when comparing the engine itself fasmg can be in fact less resource-hungry. ProMiNick wrote: Question 3: (fasmg relative) Will it be good if in core will be injected "macro CPU" like "macro format" done? |
|||
07 May 2018, 13:11 |
|
Tomasz Grysztar 07 May 2018, 18:36
I have just realized that there is an additional problem with "macro ?". In fasm 1 PURGE works a bit differently - a macro is not able to use it to remove its own definition, as in fasmg. In fasm 1 PURGE removes the previous definition of a macro when used from inside of it.
This behavior would need to be changed either for "macro ?" only (an unsatisfactory break of symmetry) or for all macros, which would be breaking backward-compatibility again. |
|||
07 May 2018, 18:36 |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|
Copyright © 1999-2024, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube.
Website powered by rwasa.