Index
> Main > Comparison of assemblersGoto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
| Author |
|
|
vid
Japheth: i was trying to assemble it with MazeGen on his machine, during our way to (or from?) Krakow. No idea which version it was. Maybe we just messed something. Good info for MASM users than, thanks!
btw, did you have to turn on some optimization flags for this? |
|||
21 Oct 2006, 15:43 |
|
|
Japheth
Hi vid,
> btw, did you have to turn on some optimization flags for this? No. There are no such flags in MASM. |
|||
|
22 Oct 2006, 18:51 |
|
|
MazeGen
Japheth, I don't think we can use v6.15 seriously in this comparison since it is outdated (even though widely used along with 6.14).
As for MASM v8.00.50727.42, these codes generate the following results. I thing it is clear where is the difference: Code:
.686
.MODEL FLAT, STDCALL
00000000 .CODE
00000000 Start:
00000000 E9 00000081 @@: jmp @f
00000005 0000007C [ db 124 dup(?)
00
]
00000081 E9 FFFFFF7A jmp @b
00000086 @@:
END Start
Code:
.686
.MODEL FLAT, STDCALL
00000000 .CODE
00000000 Start:
00000000 EB 7E @@: jmp short @f
00000002 0000007C [ db 124 dup(?)
00
]
0000007E EB 80 jmp short @b
00000080 @@:
END Start
|
|||
|
23 Oct 2006, 17:23 |
|
|
Japheth
Hi MazeGen
> As for MASM v8.00.50727.42, I see now, the problem occurs if code segment is 32-bit, it is independant from the MASM version. |
|||
|
23 Oct 2006, 17:59 |
|
|
vid
allright... new version in first post. I won't add new criterias, until these are finished. So here is what i need.
Also, i changed "output formats" only to formats that can be directly outputted by assembler. I don't include formats they are linked to anymore. - find out exact EULAs of MASM, from various sources. - does MASM support input in other format tahn pure text? (eg UTF-8, unicode...) - what are MASM's debug formats? (including old DOS ones) - when was NASM project started? - does NASM support input in other format tahn pure text? (eg UTF-8, - has YASM support for shared ELF format? - does YASM have listing? - info about RosAsm... betov? - info about GoAsm... jeremy? PS: if you find something you consider not objective, please report. |
|||
|
15 Nov 2006, 14:13 |
|
|
rugxulo
Last edited by rugxulo on 21 Nov 2006, 14:59; edited 1 time in total |
|||
|
16 Nov 2006, 03:20 |
|
|
rugxulo
BTW, vid, here's some minor corrections to CMPASM.TXT:
|
|||
|
16 Nov 2006, 03:55 |
|
|
vid
thanks.
btw, 8 months is not far from dead for me. also last normal release is 4 years old ! |
|||
|
16 Nov 2006, 06:03 |
|
|
Japheth
> # OpenWatcom (compiler, at least) outputs DWARF debug info by default
> (other formats supported: CodeView, Watcom) ... but debugging DOS > programs on XP won't work (debugger is buggy, ha!, needs pure DOS for > debugging DOS programs) No. Indeed it works ok. But you must use "remote" debugging, which in this context just means you have to use 2 "DOS boxes". Example: 1. DOS box: C:\>vdmserv 2. DOS box: C:\>wd /tr=vdm <name of debuggee> However, the OW GUI debugger (WDW) should be avoided to debug DOS apps. |
|||
|
16 Nov 2006, 11:53 |
|
|
rugxulo
Japheth, you are correct, I just didn't understand all that mumbo-jumbo about remote debugging (mistakenly though I needed another cpu).
Quote:
The above works using the old non-default Watcom debug format but using default DWARF format crashes the debugger and using Codeview doesn't show symbolic info (e.g., labels). Maybe I did it wrong, though. 
Tested on Win XP Home SP2. |
|||
|
16 Nov 2006, 22:50 |
|
|
rugxulo
EDIT: This info is old, so just visit OpenWatcom's official site instead.
BTW, just to combine all the info from various other posts of mine (sorry if it's messy, I tried, really I did ...):
Last edited by rugxulo on 05 Dec 2007, 14:24; edited 7 times in total |
|||
|
16 Nov 2006, 23:33 |
|
|
rugxulo
Also, the following assemblers support listings (.LST): MASM, TASM, A86/A386, Arrowsoft, Wolfware (WASM.COM), NASM, YASM, Lazy (LZASM), NewBasic (NBASM/NBASM32), and FASM (via optional patch).
vid, I recommend that you also focus on Lazy (LZASM), OpenWatcom (WASM.EXE), and Octasm since they are still supported/updated, run on multiple OSes (DOS, Win32, other), and are aware of MMX, SSE, etc. instructions. (I understand you are limited in time, but they are worthy of further scrutiny). |
|||
|
17 Nov 2006, 00:19 |
|
|
Maverick
I used and appreciated++ Watcom in the DOS times, then when I migrated to Windows, I slowly but then definitely abandoned it for VisualC (although I wasn't exactly happy about it at first).
Now that Watcom's development has been restarted and went considerably ahead, what would be the advantages of OpenWatcom vs VC2005 Express? Expecially in terms of code generation, optimizations, C++ ISO compliance, etc.. Would it make any sense to migrate back to it? |
|||
|
17 Nov 2006, 06:34 |
|
|
vid
rugxulo: you are right i should add Lazy. Not sure yet about OpenWatcom and Octasm. But i am *very* limited on time now, so i may add them later. I just can't take too much on one hit. Maybe if authors would cooperate and fill in information for me (you know the criteria), i will add it.
|
|||
|
17 Nov 2006, 16:02 |
|
|
rugxulo
Maverick, since OpenWatcom is open source now, it should only get better, especially if people use it and report bugs/patches/etc. As far as whether it's worthwhile, I'd say yes, but then again, I don't use it exclusively. (You're allowed to use more than one compiler, ya know.)
P.S. Read the changes from recent versions, if you're curious (provides some nifty info). |
|||
|
17 Nov 2006, 19:05 |
|
|
rugxulo
|
|||
|
21 Nov 2006, 14:21 |
|
|
vid
rugxulo: i already have it in document, but in version that isn't uploaded yet.
|
|||
|
21 Nov 2006, 15:21 |
|
|
Japheth
> Japheth, you recommend POASM instead, no?
Since development of PoASM seems to have stopped and source is closed, no! > since OpenWatcom is open source now, it should only get better This most likely is true for the 32-bit C/C++ compiler, which are good tools, but the other OW stuff is well below that quality level, including WASM. |
|||
|
21 Nov 2006, 16:53 |
|
|
f0dder
Apart from the ml.exe license, don't forget this further restriction imposed on you by the MASM32 license, if you use any of that mess:
grumpyoldfart wrote:
|
|||
|
22 Nov 2006, 00:44 |
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|