flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
Index
> Main > flat assembler 1.64 Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
Author |
|
allan 10 Sep 2005, 22:58
+1 again with Embrance.
Love to work with FASM but would make starting out easier if there were some basic example code with explanations. 1. basic window 2. basic window with menu 3. basic dialog It should be accessable from main web page - in clear view! allan |
|||
10 Sep 2005, 22:58 |
|
Embrance 11 Sep 2005, 15:44
Well my main interested would be in DOS and General Cosnole applications.
Why? 1)They are easy to code 2)They are fast 3)Cleaner code Then Windows and Linux stuff:) |
|||
11 Sep 2005, 15:44 |
|
Aster!x 26 Nov 2005, 15:20
Tomasz Grysztar
Why you use syntax <> instead of != <> - it VB and Delphi syntax, not masm Why there is an opportunity to use .if eax ....... .endif But is not present .if !eax ....... .endif and .if eax != 5 ....... .endif and .if (eax != 5)&&(eax > 3)&&(eax < 7) ....... .endif And why invoke does not distinguish x64 and x86 syntax ? |
|||
26 Nov 2005, 15:20 |
|
Tomasz Grysztar 26 Nov 2005, 15:24
It's because also the native fasm's syntax (for IF directive) uses this instead of !=. Also note that in fasm ! is not a special character (it can be a part of label, so when you write "eax!=5" it is label "eax!" compared with "5".
What do you mean about "invoke"? |
|||
26 Nov 2005, 15:24 |
|
Madis731 26 Nov 2005, 15:32
<> is as descriptive as != and typing it is easier. Why not?
FASM already supports wide variety of syntaxes like 0FFh, 0xFF, etc.; TASM, MASM, etc. I wouldnt ask for more. && and other derivates are used in C-syntax, and, or, xor are more descriptive (meaning less cryptic) so: Code: (eax != 5)&&(eax > 3)&&(eax < 7) ;is very hard to read opposed to: (eax<>5) and (eax>3) and (eax<7) And why there isnt !eax? Oh, but there is NOT eax! |
|||
26 Nov 2005, 15:32 |
|
Aster!x 26 Nov 2005, 15:48
Tomasz Grysztar wrote: It's because also the native fasm's syntax (for IF directive) uses this instead of !=. Also note that in fasm ! is not a special character (it can be a part of label, so when you write "eax!=5" it is label "eax!" compared with "5". It can be corrected ? Quote: What do you mean about "invoke"? I mean that macro verify a mode x86 or x64 That it was possible to write invoke MessageBox, 0, _message, _caption, 0 and macro would generate a code mov r9d,0 lea r8,[_caption] lea rdx,[_message] mov rcx,0 call [MessageBox] |
|||
26 Nov 2005, 15:48 |
|
Tomasz Grysztar 26 Nov 2005, 15:56
You use the PROC64.INC for Win64 and PROC32.INC for Win32. The 64-bit macros packages are yet undocumented, though. And there are no 64-bit headers (WIN64.INC etc.) yet, too - so you have to include PROC64.INC and others manually.
|
|||
26 Nov 2005, 15:56 |
|
MattBro 04 Dec 2005, 07:25
Here's an off the wall question that I've asked before. How hard would it be to turn the current version of fasm into a just in time (JIT) compiler? Thus one would have a character string in memory representing the assembly subroutine one wishes to execute; one would call fasm as a function call in a library and then assemble the assembly into binary in some buffer in memory; followed by the execution of the code in memory. Presumably to make the code relocatable, one would use the appropriate macros to tag the start of the memory buffer the binary code would be written to. Last I checked fasm already has some macro directives that make this possible.
|
|||
04 Dec 2005, 07:25 |
|
rugxulo 13 Dec 2005, 01:18
FASM: Frequently And Silently Modified
(updated yet again: Dec. 8, 2005) |
|||
13 Dec 2005, 01:18 |
|
LocoDelAssembly 13 Dec 2005, 02:37
What's different in this new version? (I always forget to unzip in a temporal folder and then use a file comparing tool)
[edit] Don't reply, I know now http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=32958 [/edit] |
|||
13 Dec 2005, 02:37 |
|
LocoDelAssembly 14 Dec 2005, 01:57
I've checked FASM at sourceforge and I noticed that the version is older than the FASM's site (is the 1.64 but is not 1.64.08122005). Why FASM at sourceforge is not updated? I also checked the stats and there is some downloads there.
|
|||
14 Dec 2005, 01:57 |
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2 < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|
Copyright © 1999-2024, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube.
Website powered by rwasa.