flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
![]() |
Author |
|
bitRAKE
What really threw me was that sometimes it doesn't produce and error:
Code: use32 mfree: call 33h:?.64 retn ?.64: use64 retf Edit: oh, it's because this followed the previous and it found the prior ?.64 That makes me think the second ":" causing the problem. |
|||
![]() |
|
Tomasz Grysztar
Starting with version ixvg several months ago I modified the definition of the base symbol for identifiers starting with dot, it is now the latest symbol defined before the current line, so the one defined in the same line does not count (it starts being applied with the next line). I did it to increase the consistency of the language - previously you could get different results depending on whether the line was processed by a macro or not.
|
|||
![]() |
|
bitRAKE
That does mean I need to change my coding style. Thank you.
|
|||
![]() |
|
revolution
That is a break from fasm syntax:
Code: .y: labl: jmp .y ; error: undefined symbol 'labl.y'. |
|||
![]() |
|
Tomasz Grysztar
There is little reason to back-port this to fasm 1, even if I consider it a needed change in wider context.
|
|||
![]() |
|
revolution
Tomasz Grysztar wrote: There is little reason to back-port this to fasm 1, even if I consider it a needed change in wider context. |
|||
![]() |
|
Tomasz Grysztar
revolution wrote: I hope it isn't back ported to fasm. The current behaviour is good. I think the new fasmg behaviour breaks the principle of least surprise. |
|||
![]() |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|
Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube, Twitter.
Website powered by rwasa.