flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
![]() |
Author |
|
Tomasz Grysztar
1) Thanks for the report, it's fixed now.
2) The mnemonic-like segment override prefixes are present since the very beginning of fasm. For branch prefixes see http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=4547#4547 As for NASM-like O16 and O32, I mentioned them here: http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=5287, but I got no positive feedback. |
|||
![]() |
|
Hunter
Maybe is better to use something-like "O16 <instruction>" or "OS <instruction>"? OS - operand size, AS - address size, and for branch prefixes to define mnemonics like "BT" and "BNT", e.i. BT - branch taken, BNT - branch not taken.
|
|||
![]() |
|
LocoDelAssembly
BT is a mnemonic already, it's Bit Test
|
|||
![]() |
|
rugxulo
I think O16 and O32 are a pretty good idea. However, ut and lt stink.
![]() <EDIT> Doh, JA would conflict, wouldn't it? Oh well, maybe JES, NE ? </EDIT> Last edited by rugxulo on 08 Jun 2006, 21:54; edited 1 time in total |
|||
![]() |
|
Hunter
Yes, BT is already used, ok.
I suggest using following mnemonics: 1) O16 and O32 2) A16 and A32 3) maybe including OS and AS, which will depend on current 16-bit or 32-bit code segment. 4) BHT and BHNT for branch hint prefixes. see http://qc.borland.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=15548 |
|||
![]() |
|
Tomasz Grysztar
I really don't understand why everyone so dislike the UT/LT
![]() Anyway, since those are easily defined with equates, I don't feel it necessary to build them in - unless there comes some naming standard for them. The notation I actually saw most frequently was HT/HNT. (BTW: there was also a thread here about this: http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=5113 and I revived it, as I found another interesting thing about this topic, and that thread seems to be more appropriate to discuss it). As for the O16/O32 - on one side, it would be nice as another compatibility with NASM; on the other, the fasm's point initially was that those prefixes shouldn't be actually needed, as the combinations of size specifiers should allow to make any variant of the instruction you need. Only recently it appeared (in that mentioned thread) that there are some (thought rare and not of crucial importance) problems with this approach. However I still prefer this over the O16/O32 notation, which is cryptic and may be sometimes misleading. Last edited by Tomasz Grysztar on 08 Jun 2006, 09:36; edited 1 time in total |
|||
![]() |
|
Hunter
I like BHT/BHNT more than HT/HNT
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
Betov
There was also a wide discussion in between most of the actual Assemblers Authors, at the time these came out. After some time, i choosed to "align" my choice on the one of one of the NASM developers, who was part of the discussion:
LTJ // UTJ Unfortunately, the discussion, and my efforts to push to a common decision, so that all actual Assemblers could all share the same mnemonic, have been useless, and this choice has not even been implemented into NASM itself (!!!...). It was, to me, my very _last_ attempt of ever trying to unicize anything, with guys who do not _want_ to unicize anything, not even for a so costless and un-important detail. ![]() Betov. |
|||
![]() |
|
rugxulo
I say we should have a vote.
P.S. Betov, you sure took long enough to post: your last post was in '04, almost two years ago! Glad you still occasionally read this forum, though. ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
okasvi
offtopic: Betov as author of Rosasm?
|
|||
![]() |
|
Betov
Yes, "Betov, as...". I stopped posting anything, here, since Thomasz dishonored himself with compromising with Randall Hide. Nevertheless, on such a general interrest subject as defining a trivial Mnemonic, i keep in the opinion, that it would be of general interrest of having all of the actual Assemblers assuming a so low cost of "compatibility".
Betov. |
|||
![]() |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|
Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube, Twitter.
Website powered by rwasa.