Index
> Main > flat assembler 1.60 |
| Author |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 12 Mar 2005, 19:00
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 |
|||
12 Mar 2005, 19:00 |
|
|
iklin 12 Mar 2005, 19:43
Good!
 |
|||
|
12 Mar 2005, 19:43 |
|
|
rob.rice 13 Mar 2005, 01:45
can it be rebuilt without the 64 bit includes for those of us with a 32 bit cpu
|
|||
|
13 Mar 2005, 01:45 |
|
|
iklin 13 Mar 2005, 05:25
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. |
|||
|
13 Mar 2005, 05:25 |
|
|
Yawgmoth 13 Mar 2005, 18:28
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).
|
|||
|
13 Mar 2005, 18:28 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 13 Mar 2005, 21:21
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. |
|||
|
13 Mar 2005, 21:21 |
|
|
FlashBurn 14 Mar 2005, 08:19
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 |
|||
|
14 Mar 2005, 08:19 |
|
|
revolution 14 Mar 2005, 09:04
FASM 1.60 cannot compile the following but 1.58 can without problem.
Code: _rand_mt rd 25 movq mm1,qword [_rand_mt] |
|||
|
14 Mar 2005, 09:04 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 14 Mar 2005, 10:13
 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. |
|||
|
14 Mar 2005, 10:13 |
|
|
Kevin_Zheng 14 Mar 2005, 17:33
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 |
|||
|
14 Mar 2005, 17:33 |
|
|
revolution 15 Mar 2005, 01:57
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. |
|||
|
15 Mar 2005, 01:57 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 15 Mar 2005, 04:37
The development releases were not hidden - they were on the official "Download" page. But not announcing them properly on forums was my mistake.
|
|||
|
15 Mar 2005, 04:37 |
|
|
rwalt 17 Mar 2005, 05:00
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. Always check the Download Section. He had it plainly displayed. _________________ DarkStar |
|||
|
17 Mar 2005, 05:00 |
|
|
scientica 20 Mar 2005, 10:07
shhh. don't reveal the conspiracy of the .x releases
 |
|||
|
20 Mar 2005, 10:07 |
|
|
revolution 21 Mar 2005, 01:54
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. |
|||
|
21 Mar 2005, 01:54 |
|
|
acutedog 01 Apr 2005, 11:41
Why cann't I find the Win32 console version?
|
|||
|
01 Apr 2005, 11:41 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 01 Apr 2005, 11:44
Both Win32 versions are now packaged together.
|
|||
|
01 Apr 2005, 11:44 |
|
|
mike.dld 05 May 2005, 12:32
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.
|
|||
|
05 May 2005, 12:32 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 05 May 2005, 12:54
When new releases are just bugfixes I used to mention them only in the thread where the bug was reported.
|
|||
|
05 May 2005, 12:54 |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|