flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Main > fasm-based code generation library

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
Quote:

Open Source rocks!!!

Open Source can be a good thing sometimes, even GPL has it's uses - I don't think it's a good generic license, though. It has too many restrictions, often making it unusable for commercial projects. Communism failed, and so will software communism. There's other ways of doing OS than GPL, fortunately.

Enough on that, I don't want to start a license war Smile

Tomasz, how tightly coupled are the various components of FASM? A very modular "loose" coupling could be handy, i.e. being able to use just the mnemonic->machine code component without macros, symbol management, ... when you don't need the overhead of those components (not that fasm is too bloated Smile).
Post 09 Aug 2005, 18:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7752
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
Yes, I plan the library to be quite modular and allow things like use assembler without preprocessor etc. Perhaps even customizable formatter (with callbacks to handle the external symbols, relocations, etc.).
Post 09 Aug 2005, 18:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
That sounds very good - I guess you'll (re?)implement fasm in terms of this library? Whatever you do, good work Smile
Post 09 Aug 2005, 18:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7752
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
Another interesting thing would be to reimplement fasm on the x86-64 architecture, taking advantage of the SSE et al. - but I have to wait till I get any 64-bit machine for such development.
Post 09 Aug 2005, 18:36
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
THEWizardGenius



Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 382
Location: California, USA
THEWizardGenius
Quote:

Enough on that, I don't want to start a license war

Agreed Smile
Holy Wars are for USENET...

And I do think the GNU website is a little too dogmatic on the GPL, like it's the best thing ever. Open Source is great, but GPL causes problems sometimes. Still, my OS will be GPL'd.

Tomasz:
It would be great to have a 64-bit part too. But be sure to keep a 32-bit part, too, since most of us don't have a 64-bit computer yet... Crying or Very sad
Post 09 Aug 2005, 19:10
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7752
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
Quote:
since most of us don't have a 64-bit computer yet...


Just like me. Wink
Post 09 Aug 2005, 19:19
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Raedwulf



Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 375
Location: United Kingdom
Raedwulf
Yeah nor do I...Razz
but I'm hoping to get one next year Very Happy
Post 09 Aug 2005, 19:43
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger Reply with quote
THEWizardGenius



Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 382
Location: California, USA
THEWizardGenius
I'm hoping to get one either the year after next or the year after that Razz it'll be a LONG time, since I still have to make the upgrade from 486 to Pentium 4 (sometime this year, hopefully). I would get a 64-bit computer, but I'm making a 32-bit OS, so that wouldn't work too well...
Post 09 Aug 2005, 20:31
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
I don't think a 64bit port of fasm itself is too important, as the current 64bit systems have fine "legacy" 32bit modes. It would probably be a lot of work(?), without too much gain. But it might be a fun project nonetheless Smile

Quote:

it'll be a LONG time, since I still have to make the upgrade from 486 to Pentium 4 (sometime this year, hopefully). I would get a 64-bit computer, but I'm making a 32-bit OS, so that wouldn't work too well...

Latest model P4's are also 64bit. And if you haven't got one yet, I'd say go for an AMD64 instead, it's a better price/performance ratio as things are now (not to mention less power consumption and less heat). Both processors work quite fine in 32bit mode as well, so consider it a future investment.

XP64 does seem to run pretty nicely.
Post 10 Aug 2005, 01:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Raedwulf



Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 375
Location: United Kingdom
Raedwulf
I agree with f0dder ...i see most of the benchmarks going to amd's way Razz.
But you could ge a P3 and notice the speed difference compared to your 486 Very Happy...no offense meant.
So any old P4 will feel a lot different Smile
32bit or 64bit....I'll go 64bit because 1.) It has new instruction sets.
2.) You need to know the compatibility...64bit runs 32 bit most f the time but just in case - but anyways did 16bit programs have much difficulty with 32bit machines? Not really....it was only the operating system ie. winxp which got some 16bit programs not to work.

So I'd go with f0dders suggestion
Post 10 Aug 2005, 06:24
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Raedwulf



Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 375
Location: United Kingdom
Raedwulf
66Mhz -> approx. 2ghz-3ghz
30x to 45x faster computer....WOW!

Your next computer after this new one.
3ghz * 45 = 135ghz

......hmmm j/k

Besides computer speed isn't really about the clock speed anymore Razz
It's about latencies etc. so this is purely just for fun Very Happy. You will notice that P4 3.0ghz can perform less quick than amd's that run at 2ghz.
Different architecture Wink
Post 10 Aug 2005, 06:37
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7752
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
Quote:
I don't think a 64bit port of fasm itself is too important, as the current 64bit systems have fine "legacy" 32bit modes.

But some features could be easily added when making such port. Like 128-bit calculations (as currently they are 64-bit ones in 32-bit) etc.
Post 10 Aug 2005, 06:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tommy



Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Posts: 489
Location: Norway
Tommy
I think it would be great to see a 64-bit port... Very Happy 128-bit calculations, even faster compilation (that's not a problem with fasm though, but it would be cool to see how fast it can get).. :p

One question Tomasz: will you implement "float" calculations in the future?
Post 10 Aug 2005, 10:39
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7752
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
Didn't plan it - the only solution I would consider would be to do high-precision calculations in the style of current string to floating point conversion routine, so the results would be always the same (independent of environment), and this would need quite a complicated set of routines. Also there would be problem with distinguishing where to use floating point and where integer operations - currently everything is simple and clear, floating point values are just converted to binary, and all the calculations are on the binary integers. Thus you can even implement floating point operations yourself, using the existing features.
Post 10 Aug 2005, 10:56
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
Quote:

But some features could be easily added when making such port. Like 128-bit calculations (as currently they are 64-bit ones in 32-bit) etc.

That's true... guess it might be useful to somebody. Of course this could be implemented on 32bit architectures as well, but requires more work Smile

Quote:

the only solution I would consider would be to do high-precision calculations in the style of current string to floating point conversion routine, so the results would be always the same (independent of environment)

That does seem to require qutie some code - just look at how much work it requires in NASM.
Post 10 Aug 2005, 11:41
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7752
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
Quote:
That does seem to require qutie some code - just look at how much work it requires in NASM.

AFAIK, NASM does just as much as fasm does - converts the decimal floating point values to their binary representation, and doesn't allow any calculations.
Post 10 Aug 2005, 11:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Reverend



Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 408
Location: Poland
Reverend
Tomasz Grysztar wrote:
But some features could be easily added when making such port. Like 128-bit calculations (as currently they are 64-bit ones in 32-bit) etc.
We can always write a library to deal with bignums. I guess it isn't so hard (I once wrote bignum_addition procedure), so we could have even 512 bit calucaltions. But I think that writing a library capable of 128 bit calculations is achieveable project even now, when fasm isn't ported to 64-bit.
Post 10 Aug 2005, 22:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7752
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
I meant implementing 128-bit calculations in 64-bit mode analogously to the current implementation of 64-bit ones in 32-bit mode. Without writing much new (and perhaps complex) code.

BTW, bignum addition is an easy excercise to write, it's the division with remainder that may be a bit of challenge (at least if you want to have it fast). I would recommend the classic AOP by Knuth, there are some good solutions nicely presented.
Post 10 Aug 2005, 22:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7752
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
After contacting the support at PayPal I've found out it's hard to tell when they allow me to receive money. For now I found the other such service - the moneybookers.com. Do you think it's popular enough I would use it for the purpose of flat assembler donations?
Post 13 Aug 2005, 18:25
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
THEWizardGenius



Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 382
Location: California, USA
THEWizardGenius
I doubt it, but I could be wrong. PayPal seems like the most popular, but if you can't get it there, you may have to use something less popular...
Post 14 Aug 2005, 18:12
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

< 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.