Index
> Main > /D switch for FASM?Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
| Author |
|
|
MichaelH 07 Feb 2007, 23:25
debugging information
http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=4645 listing for fasm 1.63 and higher http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=3908&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 Not exactly step by step debugging but better than nothing. Of course if you want extra cmdline options, you're free to add them to your own version of fasm. I've named mine fasmEx. Actually I'm still toying with JSASM, an assembler written in javascript ..... don't laugh, I'm actually making progress  |
|||
07 Feb 2007, 23:25 |
|
|
f0dder 08 Feb 2007, 10:51
NTOSKRNL_VXE wrote:
(I numbered your questions to make it easier to answer without a lot of quote boxes). First, let me ask: how exactly does the possibility of Visual Studio integration detract from the product quality? It's not like you're forced to use VS if you don't want to. 1) yes, it's pretty useful, depending on what you do. For small assembly projects, probably no. For larger C++ projects, yes - nice debugger, source/version control integration, resource editor, dependency resolving, etc. 2) listed in #1 3) The MS listed requirements for the Express Editions are XPSP2 or Win2kSP4. Wouldn't be surprised if they work fine with vanilla XP or SP1. 4) my installation is 1.93GB - or less than 1.5% of a 160gig drive, which is small by today's standards. VS2005/C++ express edition is a 474MB download, dunno how large installed (the MS download page says "500MB minimum"). 5) you can get the express edition for free, and many schools/universities have a MSDNAA license where you can get the full version for free or very cheap. 6) IANAL, but yes, the Express Edition license seems extremely loose to me - I haven't found anything in it that would prevent you from using it for commercial development, developing for other operating systems, or anything to that effect. But again, I fail to see what this has to do with YASM supporting visual studio integration. |
|||
|
08 Feb 2007, 10:51 |
|
|
vid 08 Feb 2007, 11:03
just a note: Visual Studio 6 had a great IDE and shitty compiler, Visual Studio 8 has shitty IDE and good compiler. For some reason, they made typical buzzwordy thing from it.
|
|||
|
08 Feb 2007, 11:03 |
|
|
f0dder 08 Feb 2007, 11:17
vid: it's not quite as simple as that, unfortunately
Some things in the .net IDE are better, and some things are worse. I prefer the VS6 IDE speed and size and layout, but the solution/project split, the debugger and the browse database are really nifty in .net. |
|||
|
08 Feb 2007, 11:17 |
|
|
Japheth 08 Feb 2007, 11:25
VC++ EE is dreadfully bloated. It's disgusting to see how a very good C++ compiler can be packaged with such garbage.
|
|||
|
08 Feb 2007, 11:25 |
|
|
rugxulo 08 Feb 2007, 22:29
NTOSKRNL_VXE wrote:
And me too! DOS forever!
NTOSKRNL_VXE wrote:
YASM works in DOS. Try it! (The author has been very nice and helpful, too, FYI.)
r22 wrote:
Ugh. why not JuST UsE "oN-sCREEN kEYBOARD" to type your replies to this FoRuM?? If you love your mouse so much, why don't you marry it?? 
Seriously, SOL.EXE (arrow keys) and FREECELL.EXE (numpad) both support the keyboard, but SPIDER.EXE does not, even though its .EXE is 10 times the size of either!  |
|||
|
08 Feb 2007, 22:29 |
|
|
vid 08 Feb 2007, 22:49
you could use keyboard-controlled mouse to type on on-screen keyboard
 |
|||
|
08 Feb 2007, 22:49 |
|
|
DOS386 09 Feb 2007, 01:02
f0dder wrote:
Quote: (I numbered your questions to make it easier to answer Thanks. Quote: For small assembly projects, probably no. For ^^^ me. Quote: For larger C++ projects, yes Maybe 
Quote: requirements for the Express Editions are XPSP2 or Win2kSP4 Skepticism confirmed. Quote: installation is 1.93GB - or less than 1.5% of a 160gig drive Thanks for revealing the truth. It is 20'000 times  more
bloated than FASMD, so I have still to keep my residual doubt whether it is really 20'000 times more valuable
Quote: supporting visual studio integration. Risk of focusing on VS and neglecting other qualities ? vid wrote: Quote: Visual Studio 6 had a great IDE and shitty compiler, Visual Studio 8 has shitty IDE and good compiler. Sure ? 6 is reported to generate fast code. 6's code works in DOS but can require MSVCRT.DLL  . 7's code works in DOS but requires MSVCR71.DLL
and MSVCP71.DLL 8's code is desperatelly crappy, requires
MSVCR80.DLL and MSVCP80.DLL and does NOT work in DOS
BTW, anyone knows, are those ^^^ DLL requirements absolutely given by the compiler or can one deactivate them in some settings ?  _________________ Bug Nr.: 12345 Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!! Status: Closed: NOT a Bug |
|||
|
09 Feb 2007, 01:02 |
|
|
vid 09 Feb 2007, 07:41
6's code is good, and 8's code is crappy? evidence please.
DLL requirement can be turned off by linking libc statically, that is (i think) /MT switch |
|||
|
09 Feb 2007, 07:41 |
|
|
f0dder 09 Feb 2007, 12:03
Quote:
You forgot "Wouldn't be surprised if they work fine with vanilla XP or SP1.", though. If Win2kSP4 is supported, there's no reason why vanilla XP wouldn't be. Quote:
Hardly 20'000 times more valuable, but you can't really compare an assembler to a full-blown IDE - there's a lot of stuff in there. I could get it a lot smaller easily, btw., by uninstalling features I probably won't need (like C#, SmartDevice stuff, etc.) Quote:
Now you're bring ludicruous. It's not as if VS integration is a big and complex and time-demanding task. VC6 generates shitty code, period. It was okay when it was released, but compared to what's available today, eek. Bad C++ conformance too. Calling VC2005 (not VC8!) code crappy and saying it requires those DLLs is just plain ignorance... _________________  - carpe noctem |
|||
|
09 Feb 2007, 12:03 |
|
|
vid 09 Feb 2007, 12:19
f0dder: is there some "VC2005 (not VC8!)"? I have VS2005 with VC8 as compiler...
|
|||
|
09 Feb 2007, 12:19 |
|
|
f0dder 09 Feb 2007, 12:28
Ah, seems like I remembered wrong - the older versions were called Microsoft C/C++ and not Visual C++, so I guess there's not that much risk of confusion. Nevermind, vid
|
|||
|
09 Feb 2007, 12:28 |
|
|
DOS386 10 Feb 2007, 02:35
Quote: 6's code is good, and 8's code is crappy? evidence please. Sure. 7-ZIP: 6's code, compatible (Windoze ME, 98 and 95, DOS) and reliable, and fast (Igor's statement). GNASH: 8's code, crappy, does NOT work in DOS , and, did not even
work on 2 of 3 XP machines I tested so far 
Quote: DLL requirement can be turned off by linking libc statically, that is (i think) /MT switch COOL. In version 8 also ? Quote: You forgot "Wouldn't be surprised if they work fine with vanilla XP or SP1.", though I did not forget anything. What about Windoze ME / 98 / 95 ? And DOS ? Quote: there's a lot of stuff in there Right.
Quote: VC6 generates shitty code, period. Slow ? Bloated ? Buggy ? Incompatible ? Quote: Bad C++ conformance too. Maybe
Quote: Calling VC2005 (not VC8!) code crappy and saying it requires those DLLs is just plain ignorance... NO. It is my (limited, have the code only, not the compiler) experience. _________________ Bug Nr.: 12345 Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!! Status: Closed: NOT a Bug |
|||
|
10 Feb 2007, 02:35 |
|
|
f0dder 10 Feb 2007, 02:47
Quote:
Hah, tell me you're joking? You're judging the compiler by other people's bugs?
Quote:
Yes, easily. You can choose to link libc statically, dynamically, or not to use libc at all. As always. Quote:
Win9x support has been abandoned by MS, and let it rest in peace. Same goes for DOS. I personally haven't missed either since i switched to win2k years ago, and can't see why anybody would - and I'm the guy that used to use "shell=command.com" for my stripped-to-15-mb win95, simply because it had multitasking and better caching than smartdrv. Quote:
Generates slow code, and doesn't have very good C++ conformance (evident if you need templates). Quote:
That's ignorance
The compiler generates pretty good code (depending on the input you feed it, but that's pretty DUH). It's standard library is pretty okay too. Could be done better, could be done worse. If you're going to argue about size, then whatever - it's not a problem, and it wasn't 10 years ago. |
|||
|
10 Feb 2007, 02:47 |
|
|
rugxulo 11 Feb 2007, 02:28
Maybe FASM could check the first two bytes of output, and if they were "MZ" then it could assume the .EXE extension. (Bad idea? Oh well ...).
|
|||
|
11 Feb 2007, 02:28 |
|
|
DOS386 11 Feb 2007, 03:24
Quote: and if they were "MZ" then it could assume the .EXE extension. (Bad idea? Oh well ...) I would prefer: Code:
format binary .EXE
But this was originally about setting the format from commandline: Code: if ?????????????????? ; how to do ??? format binary .EXE ; 32-bit DOS else format elf128 endif _________________ Bug Nr.: 12345 Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!! Status: Closed: NOT a Bug |
|||
|
11 Feb 2007, 03:24 |
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2 < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|