Index
> Main > I'll tell you why FASM is better!Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
| Author |
|
|
rugxulo 28 Sep 2006, 18:39
If your C compiler (e.g., GCC) is too slow, either turn off optimizations (until you're done developing, no -O and definitely no -O2) or use a different compiler (e.g. OpenWatcom). Yes, a makefile can help, but makefiles are hardly portable (at least, to my eyes), and they are a bit annoying to write (and worse to read, yuck!). But, in theory, they can be useful (not having to recompile a large project over and over and over again on a slow computer).
Lots of little files are annoying (to me) unless the project is fairly big. Plus, don't forget it wastes clusters.  Besides, I believe GCC does optimize better if you compile all the modules in one go (-funit-at-a-time ?). If you have trouble navigating around a 5000 LOC file, use vi/emacs/joe + tags.Last edited by rugxulo on 07 Oct 2006, 23:22; edited 1 time in total |
|||
28 Sep 2006, 18:39 |
|
|
2 29 Sep 2006, 05:10
Madis731 wrote: btw, 2, if you love using FASM to just generate ...erm... files?..then you should see some other topics regarding outputting TGA and BMP files, also using FASM to produce some imput data to other programs. The macro facilities are the BEST for this. Yes,my ways are strange. You have 2 remember that I have hex edited EXEs,MIDI,monochome bitmaps,and of course save files of games. I usually do a lot of C programming. It my opinion,C is the next best thing 2 assembly. I think ASM is the coolest thing in existence,but I probably won't do my coding in it much because it's time consuming. _________________ There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who know binary and those who haven't met me. |
|||
|
29 Sep 2006, 05:10 |
|
I used FASM and btw it also automatically checked the validity of this.
|
mastek 01 Oct 2006, 14:05
Fasm is better than TASM/MASM. is this true? And can we build every programs with Fasm? (I believe = YES! and you ??? )
|
|||
|
01 Oct 2006, 14:05 |
|
|
vid 01 Oct 2006, 21:43
MASM has 3 things FASM doesnt: inline macros, support in "official" circles, and symbolic information.
|
|||
|
01 Oct 2006, 21:43 |
|
|
rugxulo 04 Oct 2006, 04:02
vid, don't forget the bloat and the EULA!
|
|||
|
04 Oct 2006, 04:02 |
|
|
vid 04 Oct 2006, 06:18
oh, sorry
|
|||
|
04 Oct 2006, 06:18 |
|
|
Borsuc 05 Oct 2006, 10:38
tom tobias wrote: they were all satisfactory solutions for that dynamic era, three decades ago, but now the time has arrived, to move forward to a new era.... 
look at the new chips, they are so much complex and optimized than previous versions (i.e efficient power consumption, etc).  _________________ Previously known as The_Grey_Beast |
|||
|
05 Oct 2006, 10:38 |
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2 < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|