Index
> Non-x86 architectures > FASMARM v1.43 - Cross assembler for ARM CPUsGoto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18 ... 30, 31, 32 Next |
| Author |
|
|
Beex
Here is the example of elf wich can record phone talkes, can record FM, can record sounds...
And for some elfs you also need to write lib for propper work if it is needed |
|||
03 Mar 2010, 15:04 |
|
|
den_po
Beex wrote: revolution i'm pretty sure you don't need it. man, you've came here and you're bothering again like at sony-ericsson.ru. there are lots of info you're searching for but you are ignoring it. @revolution we use fasmarm to compile patches for sonyericsson phones since august 2006. it's a hack and the company doesn't like it but it allows us to make our phones much better. there is also great patch called elfpack which allows to use native ELF applications but we don't compile them using fasmarm mostly because of relocations. _________________ JUST_DAn_PO |
|||
|
04 Mar 2010, 01:42 |
|
|
revolution
den_po wrote: we use fasmarm to compile patches for sonyericsson phones since august 2006. it's a hack and the company doesn't like it but it allows us to make our phones much better. |
|||
|
04 Mar 2010, 02:02 |
|
|
Beex
den_po wrote: i'm pretty sure you don't need it. Nice to see you here den_po! I can't find answers on mf and se-club...Nobody there can even tell exactly what is the difference between platforms A2/2xxx and A2/3xxx, nobody can tell mem mapping on the 3200 platform...Nobody can tell even something clear about 3200... I'm trying to get info everywhere, that's why i'm bothering people and gathering info which interests me... _________________  BeJoo™(brown) |
|||
|
04 Mar 2010, 11:27 |
|
|
den_po
DB2xxx are A1
read more, learn to ask correct questions and use search. let's stop offtopic here |
|||
|
04 Mar 2010, 11:37 |
|
|
revolution
I need to ask you all here: Are you using the DOS version of fasmarm?
I am considering dropping support for DOS. The code in the development version has now grown far beyond the 64kB FRM limit and creates a complex set of problems to split it into separate 64kB sections. Note that this does not affect the console version or the other versions. So, do you really need the DOS version? |
|||
|
17 Mar 2010, 10:59 |
|
|
Dex4u
I use the windows and DexOS ver, so its not a problem for me.
As a side note, i made a striped out ver of DexOS, that had just enough to run DexOS port of fasm, it runs as a CLI program from Dos and returns back to dos once the assembler as done it job. This maybe a answer for pure dos coder's. |
|||
|
18 Mar 2010, 18:24 |
|
|
revolution
So about 100 new views and no objections. So I will move along and drop the DOS support in the next version.
Thanks go to Dex4u for offering a solution for those that may find they need to run fasmarm in DOS. |
|||
|
24 Mar 2010, 12:52 |
|
|
rugxulo
Great, only 7 days and the DOS version is killed.
 I think you could've handled that better (e.g. ask in the DOS subforum, perhaps, give a longer poll duration period, etc).
However, it's hard for even me to care, esp. since I never use ARM. But, just to be clear, there are still workarounds. (BTW, kudos to Dex for his answer, sounds cool.) Japheth's HX will run FASM for Win32 (console) in DOS, so presumably FASMARM will work too (untested). You can even run WDOSX's STUBIT.EXE to bind its DOS extender to the Win32 console .EXE, and that will run in pure DOS (but not XP, go figure, probably some obscure bug). P.S. Latest FASM development version for DOS doesn't have the 64k limit anymore. I guess it's too much work to merge his changes into FASMARM? 
Quote:
|
|||
|
24 Mar 2010, 21:35 |
|
|
revolution
rugxulo: The latest fasmarm is fully updated to the latest fasm. The 64kB limit still exists, Tomasz has just split the code into two sections with the assembler separated from the preprocessor and parser. But the ARM encoding is very complex and currently the assembler alone is ~87kB and still growing. While it is technically possibly I could split the assembler into two parts (thus making three 64kB parts) I just feel that I may be wasting my time and create a new avenue for bugs. And if no one is using it then I can not see the point of trying to do it.
I think that asking on the DOS forum is not a good place. If someone is using fasmarm then this is the place to ask. I won't go supporting DOS just because DOS users say I should. I will support DOS if fasmarm users say they are using DOS and need a DOS version. Is seven days really not enough? |
|||
|
25 Mar 2010, 02:40 |
|
|
rugxulo
revolution wrote: rugxulo: The latest fasmarm is fully updated to the latest fasm. The 64kB limit still exists, Tomasz has just split the code into two sections I was afraid of that. Luckily, we have mentioned a few workarounds. Also, perhaps Tomsrtbt (one 1.7 MB floppy) or BlueFlops (two 1.4 MB floppies) would run the Linux version, who knows. Perhaps Toms is too old (2.2 kernel), though. EDIT: I only assembled one file (befi.asm), but its output md5sum matched that of the normal DOS version. So I guess (surprisingly) tomsrtbt (circa 2002) is good enough! The main attraction of DOS software is the low footprint. (E.g. Using a computer with "only" 128 MB of RAM is annoying with WinXP or Linux, even antiX or Puppy, esp. with no virtual memory, ugh. My Vista laptop's PSU is on the fritz, so I've encountered that recently.) Quote:
If you don't have the skills to program comfortably for the DOS version, that's one thing. (You've very very smart, I'm not trying to be condescending, just saying in general.) Another thing would be lack of time. Those things I can understand. I just don't want DOS support dropped for vanity reasons. Quote:
How many people need both Linux and Win32 versions? Win32 is everywhere (90% of computers) but Linux has a bigger potential target (free/libre, i.e. in theory could be on anybody's computer). From a purely practical standpoint, there is no advantage to having both. But we all know it makes things much much easier supporting each. It sounds like you already made up your mind a long time ago and are almost "hiding" to prevent having to deal with any flames on your decision. I do think the DOS subforum is where DOS-related stuff should focus, even if you're targeting ARM. And no, seven days is nothing. Somebody could go out of town (work, vacation, etc) for a week or two and come back to find out its dead. Or maybe most people don't frequent here that much. There's only so many e-mails and forums one person can deal with on a regular basis. I don't anticipate much trouble, esp. since DOS is indeed not popular (even hated). But I wanted you to hear from at least one die-hard DOSer, albeit a non-ARM user, even if you have already made up your mind (bah). Last edited by rugxulo on 11 Apr 2010, 06:56; edited 1 time in total |
|||
|
25 Mar 2010, 19:38 |
|
|
revolution
rugxulo: The current DOS support uses FRM mode which creates the 64kB limit problem. If you have a DOS version of the "fasm.asm" file to properly support PM then I would be very happy to include it and continue to support DOS through that method.
|
|||
|
26 Mar 2010, 00:26 |
|
|
rugxulo
No, I don't have a rewritten FASM lying around. Besides, you and Privalov could code more in a week than I could do in a year (and better, too). But here's proof that what I said should work (among other ideas):
DOSBox wrote:
|
|||
|
28 Mar 2010, 18:24 |
|
|
revolution
rugxulo: KERNEL32.wdL looks like a good approach. Does it use PM mode?
|
|||
|
29 Mar 2010, 01:58 |
|
|
rugxulo
revolution wrote: rugxulo: KERNEL32.wdL looks like a good approach. Does it use PM mode? Yes, WDOSX supports all common extender environments (raw, XMS, VCPI, DPMI). EDIT: The catch is that relocs must not be stripped! Here's another (old) example of an app compiled with C: Quote:
wdosx097.zip |
|||
|
30 Mar 2010, 04:31 |
|
|
revolution
Version 1.15 is now available:
Quote: v1.15 2010-Apr-21 |
|||
|
21 Apr 2010, 12:04 |
|
|
Dex4u
Cool, thanks for all your work in the project.
|
|||
|
21 Apr 2010, 18:10 |
|
|
revolution
Dex4u: I sometimes think it is just you and me that use this.
|
|||
|
22 Apr 2010, 09:10 |
|
|
edfed
sorry, i don't have arm platform...
but indeed, everytime i see questions about arm, i always give link to your compiler.  |
|||
|
22 Apr 2010, 11:01 |
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18 ... 30, 31, 32 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|