flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Main > /D switch for FASM?

Goto page Previous  1, 2
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
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 Smile
Post 07 Feb 2007, 23:25
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
r22



Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 805
r22
Nothing wrong with environment variables. Any command line option would just be reinventing the wheel with little to no added benefit. What FASM really needs is voice command programming, a speech-2-text optimized to better recognize assembly mnemonics.

On a similar rant, I refuse to use command lines when there's a GUI solution. The MOUSE was a GOOD invention. If you are surfing the web with only your keyboard you are too far gone and should disregard my futurist basphemy. Razz
Post 08 Feb 2007, 05:45
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
NTOSKRNL_VXE wrote:

Well, this "Studio":

1) Is it useful ?
2) Benefits ?
3) Works anywhere except in XP SP2 ?
4) Size ?
5) Legal download ?
6) Usable license ?

(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.
Post 08 Feb 2007, 10:51
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
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.
Post 08 Feb 2007, 11:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
vid: it's not quite as simple as that, unfortunately Smile

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.
Post 08 Feb 2007, 11:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Japheth



Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Posts: 151
Japheth
VC++ EE is dreadfully bloated. It's disgusting to see how a very good C++ compiler can be packaged with such garbage.
Post 08 Feb 2007, 11:25
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



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

f0dder wrote:

Who cares about DOS?


ME. And Tomasz maybe. Shocked


And me too! DOS forever! Smile

NTOSKRNL_VXE wrote:

OK, existenbce of a DGJPP or "DGJPP-MSDOS" port does NOT
necessarily mean there is a usable DOS version - some of such stuff
does work in DOS, some don't (mostly Page Faults Sad ).


YASM works in DOS. Try it! (The author has been very nice and helpful, too, FYI.) Smile

r22 wrote:

On a similar rant, I refuse to use command lines when there's a GUI solution. The MOUSE was a GOOD invention. If you are surfing the web with only your keyboard you are too far gone and should disregard my futurist basphemy. Razz


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?? Razz

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! Rolling Eyes
Post 08 Feb 2007, 22:29
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
you could use keyboard-controlled mouse to type on on-screen keyboard Wink
Post 08 Feb 2007, 22:49
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
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 Confused

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 Shocked Shocked Shocked more
bloated than FASMD, so I have still to keep my residual doubt whether it is
really 20'000 times more valuable Confused

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 Sad . 7's code works in DOS but requires MSVCR71.DLL
and MSVCP71.DLL Sad Sad 8's code is desperatelly crappy, requires
MSVCR80.DLL and MSVCP80.DLL and does NOT work in DOS Sad Sad Sad

BTW, anyone knows, are those ^^^ DLL requirements absolutely
given by the compiler or can one deactivate them in some settings ? Question

_________________
Bug Nr.: 12345

Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!!

Status: Closed: NOT a Bug
Post 09 Feb 2007, 01:02
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
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
Post 09 Feb 2007, 07:41
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
Quote:

Quote:

requirements for the Express Editions are XPSP2 or Win2kSP4

Skepticism confirmed.

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:

so I have still to keep my residual doubt whether it is
really 20'000 times more valuable

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:

Quote:

supporting visual studio integration.

Risk of focusing on VS and neglecting other qualities ?

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...

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 09 Feb 2007, 12:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
f0dder: is there some "VC2005 (not VC8!)"? I have VS2005 with VC8 as compiler...
Post 09 Feb 2007, 12:19
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
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 Smile
Post 09 Feb 2007, 12:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
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 Sad, and, did not even
work on 2 of 3 XP machines I tested so far Laughing

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. Laughing

Quote:
VC6 generates shitty code, period.


Slow ? Bloated ? Buggy ? Incompatible ?

Quote:
Bad C++ conformance too.


Maybe Confused

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. Confused

_________________
Bug Nr.: 12345

Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!!

Status: Closed: NOT a Bug
Post 10 Feb 2007, 02:35
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
Quote:

GNASH: 8's code, crappy, does NOT work in DOS Sad, and, did not even
work on 2 of 3 XP machines I tested so far Laughing

Hah, tell me you're joking? You're judging the compiler by other people's bugs? Smile

Quote:

COOL. In version 8 also ?

Yes, easily. You can choose to link libc statically, dynamically, or not to use libc at all. As always.

Quote:

I did not forget anything. What about Windoze ME / 98 / 95 ? And DOS ?

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:

Quote:

VC6 generates shitty code, period.

Slow ? Bloated ? Buggy ? Incompatible ?

Generates slow code, and doesn't have very good C++ conformance (evident if you need templates).

Quote:

Calling VC2005 (not VC8!) code crappy and saying it requires those DLLs is just plain ignorance...
Quote:

NO. It is my (limited, have the code only, not the compiler) experience. Confused


That's ignorance Smile

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.
Post 10 Feb 2007, 02:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
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 ...).
Post 11 Feb 2007, 02:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DOS386



Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1901
DOS386
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
    


Shocked

_________________
Bug Nr.: 12345

Title: Hello World program compiles to 100 KB !!!

Status: Closed: NOT a Bug
Post 11 Feb 2007, 03:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2

< 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


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.