What's the difference between FASMW and FASM.exe?

Index > Windows > What's the difference between FASMW and FASM.exe?

Author

Thread

BoR0

Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Posts: 31

BoR0 14 Feb 2005, 10:52

I wonder, whats the difference between the console windows version of FASM and the GUI version of FASM?

While comparing two same files one assembled by FASM.exe and the other by FASMW.exe I noticed these changes;

Code:

Comparing files w32.exe and wconsole.exe
00000088: D2 A3
0000009B: 39 3A
000000D8: 22 EE
000000D9: BC BA
00000604: D2 A3
0000063C: D2 A3
00000654: D2 A3
0000066C: D2 A3
00000684: D2 A3
0000069C: D2 A3
000006B4: D2 A3
000006CC: D2 A3
000006E4: D2 A3
000006FC: D2 A3
00000714: D2 A3

Thanks in advance Smile

14 Feb 2005, 10:52

Tomasz Grysztar

Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 8359
Location: Kraków, Poland

Tomasz Grysztar 14 Feb 2005, 10:58

There shouldn't be differences in output other than the timestamp in PE/COFF headers (and the PE checksum consequently). Please try with the 1.58 release binaries and if you still notice differencies, report it.

14 Feb 2005, 10:58

BoR0

Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Posts: 31

BoR0 14 Feb 2005, 11:00

Yes Privalov

I tried with 1.58 and these differences are only in the DOS stub and PE headers..

Can you explain to me what these differences do?

14 Feb 2005, 11:00

Tomasz Grysztar

Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 8359
Location: Kraków, Poland

Tomasz Grysztar 14 Feb 2005, 11:07

The timestamp field records the exact time when the file was assembled.

14 Feb 2005, 11:07

BoR0

Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Posts: 31

BoR0 14 Feb 2005, 11:11

Ahhh, I see. I tried compiling the same source with FASMW and waited a minute then tried compiling it with FASMW again and compared:

Code:

00000088: DB D8
000000D8: 8F 6B
00000604: DB D8
0000063C: DB D8
00000654: DB D8
0000066C: DB D8
00000684: DB D8
0000069C: DB D8
000006B4: DB D8
000006CC: DB D8
000006E4: DB D8
000006FC: DB D8
00000714: DB D8

Though it's funny.. Why didnt

Code:

0000009B:Â 39Â 3A 
000000D9:Â BCÂ BA

appear in my second comparing?? Mad

I think there is something wrong after all

The difference between FASMW and FASM are those 2 bytes. Thats it Smile

Last edited by BoR0 on 14 Feb 2005, 11:14; edited 1 time in total

14 Feb 2005, 11:11

Tomasz Grysztar

Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 8359
Location: Kraków, Poland

Tomasz Grysztar 14 Feb 2005, 11:13

Also Win32 resources contain the timestamp fields, and the resource macros put the correct timestamp there (by use of the %t symbol), that's why there are more differencies than only in header.

14 Feb 2005, 11:13

BoR0

Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Posts: 31

BoR0 14 Feb 2005, 11:16

Thats not my point. See, when im comparing one FASM.exe and one FASMW.exe produced file the changes (except timestamp are):

0000009B:Â 39Â 3AÂ
000000D9:Â BCÂ BA

And when I compare two FASMW.exe those changes are not there. Get my point?

14 Feb 2005, 11:16

Tomasz Grysztar

Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 8359
Location: Kraków, Poland

Tomasz Grysztar 14 Feb 2005, 11:21

Offset 9Bh contains the linker version, and fasm puts its version there. This means you are comparing output from versions 1.57 and 1.58.
The offset 0D9h is inside the checksum field, which is of course affected by any other difference in files.

14 Feb 2005, 11:21

BoR0

Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Posts: 31

BoR0 14 Feb 2005, 11:29

I just checked it again. And I think you are right Smile

Perhaps something confused me that I still kept fasmw157 I think I used it instead of 158 Embarassed

Sorry

14 Feb 2005, 11:29

< 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