Index
> Main > What would you like first?Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
| Which project would you like to see finished first? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Votes : 84 |
| Author |
|
|
Dragontamer 23 Sep 2004, 04:44
Quote: Please test it extensively. So far so good. Got my macros working all good so far, and simple calls. I'll post anything with an error. |
|||
23 Sep 2004, 04:44 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 25 Sep 2004, 00:18
I have updated the attachment in my above post - quite a lot of cleaning and a bit of restructuring done in X86.INC this time, to make it a better base for X86_64.INC I'm working on now. If it doesn't show any new bugs with those changes, I'm going to make it an official release and then I might go for finishing the internals docs. And the first versions with (at least partial) AMD64 support are quite likely to show up soon.
|
|||
|
25 Sep 2004, 00:18 |
|
|
Tommy 25 Sep 2004, 07:15
 Seems to be an optimization on size as well...  Everythings works fine here too! Good work! |
|||
|
25 Sep 2004, 07:15 |
|
|
evil__donkey 30 Sep 2004, 17:51
Documentation.
|
|||
|
30 Sep 2004, 17:51 |
|
|
MazeGen 30 Sep 2004, 19:57
I'd vote for ability of assembly with debugging symbols - or is it already implemented and I miss it? Say I'm dumb, but I can't imagine debugging middle-sized complex asm project without symbols...
|
|||
|
30 Sep 2004, 19:57 |
|
|
cr4ck3r 01 Oct 2004, 06:50
Hey Privalov i think its just fair you to finish the current versions documentation before you release new version
|
|||
|
01 Oct 2004, 06:50 |
|
|
omega_red 04 Oct 2004, 14:28
More elaborated and organized documentation. The current one on the web doesn't have the table of contents. Also, explanations of almost all language constructs is hidden in the text:
Quote: The "#" operator can be also used to concatenate two quoted strings into one. It's hard to find the "`" definition if you don't exactly know what you seek. In my opinion, it should be like: 2 The preprocessor 2.1 Macroinstructions ... 2.2 Special operators ... 2.2.1 Concatenation operator [description of # operator] 2.2.2 Name to string conversion operator Conversion of name into a quoted string is possible, with the "`" operator, blablabla |
|||
|
04 Oct 2004, 14:28 |
|
|
decard 04 Oct 2004, 14:39
Yes, I agree that documentation could be organized better. And I would love to see examples of using directives Just sample line of code, like:
Code: example of using file directive; file "fasm.exe":0,0x80 This will extract first 128 bytes from fasm.exe file. |
|||
|
04 Oct 2004, 14:39 |
|
|
S.T.A.S. 05 Oct 2004, 12:42
MazeGen wrote: I'd vote for ability of assembly with debugging symbols - or is it already implemented and I miss it? You might want to check this thread, I've posted some script to create these files (Olly Debug and other programs accept them), but my method is far away from perfect  |
|||
|
05 Oct 2004, 12:42 |
|
|
scientica 05 Oct 2004, 16:01
well, IMO, at asm level there's really no need for a offset -> line number debugging info, it's better to write "good" code and when possible add sort of tag marks to 'mark' a pice of code with some land mark/dummy data,eg:
Code: ;[debug code] jmp @F db 7fh,0ffh,7fh,0ffh dw -1 db 'HELLO ME! This is where I'm at!' @@: ;[/debug code] |
|||
|
05 Oct 2004, 16:01 |
|
|
MazeGen 09 Oct 2004, 03:26
@S.T.A.S:
I don't know much about debugging formats. There are no other formats? Usable is only PDB format? Hmm, I can't find time to check your script in these days... @scientica: Since I tried full source level debugging, I didn't want any other debugging method - since then I'm very lazy 
(I use MASM and VS, but still thinking about FASM) |
|||
|
09 Oct 2004, 03:26 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 23 Oct 2004, 07:37
All my work has been sustained during the last few weeks - I have moved to a new place and it took me some time to set all up here to have the comfortable place to work.
Looking at current results of the pool I have no doubt that I should finish writing the internals documentation now, so you can expect it to be updated soon. But also the AMD64-fasm project is quite advanced, it needs only little more work before I can make some first testing-purpose-only alpha release. |
|||
|
23 Oct 2004, 07:37 |
|
|
beppe85 23 Oct 2004, 23:17
As I'm a novice with FASM, I've had some troubles with macros for instance, but all is going ok, now.
My wish list follows: * Detailed documentation, and internals too. * Listing of preprocessed assembly, with labels, and mnemonics, in a format that can be feeded again to FASM. * Peephole optimization. After macros get expanded, sometimes code without side-effects get assembled. The assembler should do the job of eliminating this code, not still another set of macros. At least if listing is provided, anyone could use write a tool that uses FASM as front-end, and send back to FASM the new optimal assembly code. * Still more support for macroses. Personally I don't need support for AMD64. It would we cool, but I'll be using x86 for a looong time. And last, but not least, I hope better IDE(s) get developed(I'm looking at Fresh now, apart of some bugs, it's doing fine). |
|||
|
23 Oct 2004, 23:17 |
|
|
roticv 24 Oct 2004, 04:22
beppe85,
You can try RADasm. IDE is not so important imo. |
|||
|
24 Oct 2004, 04:22 |
|
|
bubach 24 Oct 2004, 18:27
finishing all docs about 32-bit before moving to 64-bit seems like the best idea to me.
|
|||
|
24 Oct 2004, 18:27 |
|
|
beppe85 25 Oct 2004, 12:05
Unfortunately, for me it is. When you are used to one, it's hard to leave(I'm a former Delphi programmer(where I did all my asm coding 'till now)). Yeah, there are things of higher importance indeed, but a good IDE gives you productivity and better code.
Thank you for your answer, roticv. roticv wrote: beppe85, |
|||
|
25 Oct 2004, 12:05 |
|
|
Embrance 29 Oct 2004, 01:12
Examples all the way!
How someone can code if he dont knows to code??? lol! |
|||
|
29 Oct 2004, 01:12 |
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2 < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|