flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Main > flat assembler 1.60

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7755
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
Now available in the Download section.

This is the first stable release that supports the x86-64 architecture, but these new features generally don't affect any of the previously existing features.
As for the 64-bit output formats, only ELF64 (both executable and object) is available now, the Win64 formats are planned in the next stable release (which will be 1.62).

Also the $$ symbol has been added for a bit of compatibility with NASM and many performance optimizations have been applied.


Last edited by Tomasz Grysztar on 13 May 2005, 09:53; edited 1 time in total
Post 12 Mar 2005, 19:00
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
iklin



Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 120
Location: Russia, Siberia
iklin
Good! Smile
Post 12 Mar 2005, 19:43
View user's profile Send private message ICQ Number Reply with quote
rob.rice



Joined: 20 Dec 2003
Posts: 54
rob.rice
can it be rebuilt without the 64 bit includes for those of us with a 32 bit cpu
Post 13 Mar 2005, 01:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
PopeInnocent



Joined: 01 Jan 2004
Posts: 18
Location: USA
PopeInnocent
From the 1.60 manual

Quote:
The instructions that are not allowed in long mode include also lahf, sahf and arpl.


My understanding is that the original AMD docs said that lahf and sahf were not implemented in long mode, but that AMD later decided to include them. I understand that Intel's current implementation of x86-64 does not include lahf and sahf. I haven't checked the latest AMD docs, though; this is just something you might want to double-check.
Post 13 Mar 2005, 02:12
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
iklin



Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 120
Location: Russia, Siberia
iklin
rob.rice wrote:
can it be rebuilt without the 64 bit includes for those of us with a 32 bit cpu


There is no need. All 32bit functionality is in 1.60 if I'm right. Smile
Post 13 Mar 2005, 05:25
View user's profile Send private message ICQ Number Reply with quote
Yawgmoth



Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Posts: 37
Yawgmoth
Yes, but not all 64bit compatibility is in 32bit processors. So if a program were compiled using 64bit includes, it would not be compatible with 32bit processors (I think).
Post 13 Mar 2005, 18:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7755
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
I will repeat once again what I've already written above:
The new features don't affect any of the previously existing features.
A source that compiled with previous versions will compile in exactly the same way (the only problem might be that there are more reserved words in the new version, so if you used some labels called like new instructions or registers, you may have to rename them). This is exactly the same situation as when I was adding SSE or 3DNow! instructions.

Read about the SSSE principle here - it's consequence is that you should never have to worry about such things in case of flat assembler.
Post 13 Mar 2005, 21:21
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
FlashBurn



Joined: 06 Jan 2005
Posts: 87
FlashBurn
I have a problem with the syscall/sysret instructions. It seems that those aren´t supported in 32bit mode.


Last edited by FlashBurn on 15 Mar 2005, 05:50; edited 1 time in total
Post 14 Mar 2005, 08:19
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17474
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
FASM 1.60 cannot compile the following but 1.58 can without problem.

Code:
_rand_mt        rd      25
        movq    mm1,qword [_rand_mt]       
    
Post 14 Mar 2005, 09:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7755
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
Sad I guess you was not aware of 1.59.x releases. I have patched the official 1.60 with the fix for this bug, but this what I wanted to avoid by making the "development" releases. I should make it more carefully next time.
Post 14 Mar 2005, 10:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Kevin_Zheng



Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 125
Location: China
Kevin_Zheng
It's a good message for fasm funs. But I think that fasm support DOS obj format maybe improve its usage on the programer world.

Thank Privalov's hard work.

Kevin Zheng
Post 14 Mar 2005, 17:33
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17474
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
I missed the announcement for 1.59.x. But now I see the it was under a topic titled "64bit ver close to done?". I never expected new releases to be 'hidden away' in such a fashion.

Since I don't have a lot of time to surf the forums I tend to rely on the thread titles to give me a quick idea if I night be able to contribute to a thread.

Anyhow, I would have been glad to test the 1.59.x versions if I had known they were there.
Post 15 Mar 2005, 01:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7755
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
The development releases were not hidden - they were on the official "Download" page. But not announcing them properly on forums was my mistake.
Post 15 Mar 2005, 04:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rwalt



Joined: 27 Apr 2004
Posts: 19
Location: Illinois, USA
rwalt
revolution wrote:
I missed the announcement for 1.59.x. But now I see the it was under a topic titled "64bit ver close to done?". I never expected new releases to be 'hidden away' in such a fashion.

Since I don't have a lot of time to surf the forums I tend to rely on the thread titles to give me a quick idea if I night be able to contribute to a thread.

Anyhow, I would have been glad to test the 1.59.x versions if I had known they were there.


Always check the Download Section. He had it plainly displayed.

_________________
DarkStar
Post 17 Mar 2005, 05:00
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
scientica
Retired moderator


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 689
Location: Linköping, Sweden
scientica
shhh. don't reveal the conspiracy of the .x releases Razz
Post 20 Mar 2005, 10:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17474
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
rwalt, you are right of course. But it is not something I normally do to check a (mostly) static page each day for changes.

Perhaps once a week (if I remember) I will now check the download page for any updates.
Post 21 Mar 2005, 01:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
acutedog



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 1
Location: Shanghai, China
acutedog
Why cann't I find the Win32 console version?
Post 01 Apr 2005, 11:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7755
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
Both Win32 versions are now packaged together.
Post 01 Apr 2005, 11:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
mike.dld



Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 235
Location: Belarus, Minsk
mike.dld
Why there's no any mention about new testing versions? I visit FASM site quite rare, because I mostly visit this board with hope all news are also mirrored here.
Post 05 May 2005, 12:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7755
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
When new releases are just bugfixes I used to mention them only in the thread where the bug was reported.
Post 05 May 2005, 12:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< 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


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.