Comparison of assemblers

Index > Main > Comparison of assemblers

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Author

Thread

Filter

Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 67

Filter 22 Nov 2006, 01:53

f0dder, I would say that pretty much rules Masm32 out as a viable assembler for any serious projects.

rugxulo, Masm 8 is now available in the newly released Windows SDK for XP/Vista. I'm not sure of the license but there shouldn't be any serious restrictions. They even have ml64.exe for 64-bit compiling.

22 Nov 2006, 01:53

vid
Verbosity in development

Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia

vid 22 Nov 2006, 12:25

Filter: link please.

Here is what i have in document about MASM licensing so far. I have not yet properly revisited GeneSys license, it's pretty long:

Code:

LICENSE:        MASM can be obtained freely from various places:
        - official MASM 8.0 
        (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=7A1C9DA0-0510-44A2-B042-7EF370530C64)
                - You can use only one copy of it
                - You can use it only for non-commercial purpose
                - You can't export your apps to selected "anti-US" countries.
        - WinDDK, Platform SDK (??? link)
                - You can use at most 10 copies of it
                - You can't export your apps to selected "anti-US" countries.
        - MASM32 - author claims to have agreement with microsoft. 
        (http://www.masm32.com/mlicence.htm)
                - You must accept full responsibility for your apps
                - You can use it only to create apps for windows.
                - You cannot write open-source software with it
        - GeneSys - author claims to have agreement with microsoft. 
                - You can use it only to create apps for windows.
                - You cannot write open-source software with it
                TODO

22 Nov 2006, 12:25

f0dder

Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3175
Location: Denmark

f0dder 22 Nov 2006, 14:53

Filter: the assembler is called MASM, not MASM32 - the latter is hutch--'s project... and as he can't apply any further restrictions to ml.exe itself, those MASM32 license restrictions covers - well, the license doesn't say explicitely, but probably "all the non-Microsoft stuff in there".

22 Nov 2006, 14:53

rugxulo

Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)

rugxulo 19 Dec 2006, 04:41

Well, OpenWatcom 1.6 has been released. (No, haven't tried WASM 1.6 yet, but I doubt it changed much).

EDIT #2: Okay, I only briefly tested it, but it seems the opcodes for TEST and XCHG are different now (regs swapped?). Yes, this product could use some more testing from people like us (hint hint)! Smile

EDIT: They've split the OpenWatcom installer into separate .ZIPs, so you can read the following FreeDOS announcement for a quick summary of what .ZIPs you may need/may not need (i.e., selective install).

Last edited by rugxulo on 02 Jan 2007, 00:27; edited 4 times in total

19 Dec 2006, 04:41

Japheth

Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Posts: 151

Japheth 19 Dec 2006, 17:33

Besides GeneSys, MASM32 and MASM 8.0 there is another "officially" MASM source, that is the "Visual C Processor Pack", which includes MASM v6.15. The licence of this MASM instance is not (that) restricted as the ones contained in the other sources, but requires you to be the owner of a MS Visual C/Visual Studio v6 [or above] licence.

Here's a link:

http://users.easystreet.com/jkirwan/new/pctools.html

19 Dec 2006, 17:33

vid
Verbosity in development

Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia

vid 20 Dec 2006, 00:00

thanks, a saved a link

20 Dec 2006, 00:00

rugxulo

Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)

rugxulo 28 Jan 2007, 04:56

1). Hey vid, you should update your link to GoASM (although it redirects anyways, for now): http://www.jorgon.freeserve.co.uk/

Jeremy Gordon's GoDev tools

GoASM 0.55.15 -- supports Win32, Win64, Unicode programs, etc. (outputs COFF)
GoRC 0.90.2 -- .RES -> .RC; .RES or .RC -> OBJ
GoLink 0.26.7 -- COFF + RES -> .EXE or .DLL
GoBug 0.91 -- symbolic debugger (Win- 95/98/ME only)
- GoBug 2.03 (W9x, ME, NT4, 2000 and XP (32-bit)) is not free ($47 for single license)
PAWS 0.10 -- simple editor and file manager

2). Also, I've slightly updated my list of (mostly) DOS assemblers found in this thread.

EDIT: YASM now supports CodeView8 debugging info (even the DOS version, possibly might work w/ OpenWatcom's WD?) and the Mach-O output format (32-bit or 64-bit, supposedly not too stable yet).

28 Jan 2007, 04:56

vid
Verbosity in development

Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia

vid 28 Jan 2007, 09:17

allright... i should write something more for this... for now i have been fully busy with FASMLIB

28 Jan 2007, 09:17

rugxulo

Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)

rugxulo 25 Feb 2007, 23:52

YASM 0.6.0 has been released (but OMF/OBJ support and a few other things have been pushed back to 0.7.0).

EDIT: I noticed something when comparing Octasm and FASM:

FASM:

Code:

org 100h
Komenco:
 push ax bx cx dx
 nop
 pop dx cx bx ax              ; correctly restores everything
Fino:
 ret

Octasm:

Code:

LANG OCTASM,0.1 file_out \temp.com
org 100h use16
#Komenco
 push ax,bx,cx,dx             ; (pushes in reverse)
 nop
 pop ax,bx,cx,dx              ; correctly restores everything
#Fino
 ret

Weird, eh? Smile

25 Feb 2007, 23:52

Madis731

Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 2139
Location: Estonia

Madis731 27 Feb 2007, 11:56

I like octasm better in this small difference because if you change anything in the push sequence, its easy to copy-paste it to the pop place and change push to pop. In FASM I always have to reorder them and sometimes I'm so lazy that I use pusha/popa instead :$ (bash me for this)

27 Feb 2007, 11:56

Raedwulf

Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 375
Location: United Kingdom

Raedwulf 28 Feb 2007, 08:31

Madis731 wrote:

I like octasm better in this small difference because if you change anything in the push sequence, its easy to copy-paste it to the pop place and change push to pop. In FASM I always have to reorder them and sometimes I'm so lazy that I use pusha/popa instead :$ (bash me for this)

New macros for madis:

Code:

push e,a,b,c,d ;push edx ecx ebx eax
pop e,a,b,c,d ;ppop eax ebx ecx edx

lol

_________________
Raedwulf

28 Feb 2007, 08:31

rugxulo

Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)

rugxulo 01 Mar 2007, 03:41

Don't TASM and MASM support USES (to save regs) with their PROCs?

Madis, I also like Octasm's way of doing things. But who knows, maybe there's some weird reason for FASM not to do it that way.

01 Mar 2007, 03:41

rugxulo

Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)

rugxulo 07 Jun 2007, 05:25

Also, only a few support "radix" (Arrowsoft, A86, MASM, TASM) or "0x108" for hex numbers (at least NASM, YASM, FASM).

P.S. moderator, will you consider making this thread sticky? (I know, weird request for a topic about other assemblers, but whatever.) I updated (on page one) the mentions of some other assemblers that were updated, so people may wish to find it (assuming others and myself continually mention newer releases there). It could also be a mention of newer FASM ports (e.g. the unfinished SolarOS version or whatever).

07 Jun 2007, 05:25

tom tobias

Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa

tom tobias 07 Jun 2007, 18:28

rugxulo wrote:

It could also be a mention of newer FASM ports (e.g. the unfinished SolarOS version or whatever).

http://www.oby.ro/forum/viewtopic.php?t=86

bogdan, describing the 'fully functional' FASM port, at this link above, wrote:

This new SOL version fixes a bug in API_File_Write and is required for FASM port.

FASM ported on SOL (with sources):
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.oby.ro/os/files/fasm_sol_2007_05_12_src.zip

A screen shot is here:
http://www.oby.ro/os/images/sol_os_2007_05_12_fasm_port.png

Fully functional...
I have added a button to debug the compilation process (just in case).

Of course you can run and debug your FASM compiled applications on SOL if you insert an INT3 instruction at application startup or at your interest point.

07 Jun 2007, 18:28

rugxulo

Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)

rugxulo 08 Jun 2007, 06:52

Um, good about a FASM port, bad about everything else (very confusing, actually, and I highly doubt anything will come of BlueSky).

08 Jun 2007, 06:52

Hayden

Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 132

Hayden 08 Jun 2007, 08:41

I must admit FASM is very linear and logical in its interpretation of syntax when it comes to compileing. thanks for the robust assembler TG

_________________
New User.. Hayden McKay.

08 Jun 2007, 08:41

rugxulo

Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)

rugxulo 06 Aug 2007, 17:19

updated the list of (mostly DOS) assemblers to newest versions
FYI, if you didn't read elsewhere on the forum, FASM 1.67.22 has been released (Aug. 6)
YASM is (unofficially) up to snapshot r1907
I was wrong, old unreal Octasm 0.15 does indeed work with XMS (but conflicts when writing to any RAM drives, in my tests) ... possibly a side effect of DR-DOS' buggy EMM386, needs more investigation

06 Aug 2007, 17:19

vid
Verbosity in development

Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia

vid 06 Aug 2007, 18:35

Sorry guys, i have too much ongoing things to continue with this one. If someone would like to take over, i would gladly add some content to this (as i have already used FASM, MASM, YASM, NASM and gas), but I simply don't have time maintain this.

I already made my "assembler comparison" in my mind, and effort it takes to present it would be huge, i would rather spend that time with other things.

06 Aug 2007, 18:35

rugxulo

Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)

rugxulo 07 Aug 2007, 17:35

vid, don't worry about it, I was just mentioning a few things here for reference sake (since I'm personally a bit curious about it). Feel free to spend your time on other stuff (FASMLIB, C, job, girlfriend, etc., heh). Wink

07 Aug 2007, 17:35

vid
Verbosity in development

Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia

vid 07 Aug 2007, 19:08

that's it, except for order of things Wink

also, there is one thing more that i am not mentioning yet.

I think that is more than enough. Taking more project would be irresponsible from me.

thanks for support.

07 Aug 2007, 19:08

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >

Forum Rules:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum