Index
> Main > Why not OMFGoto page Previous 1, 2 |
| Author |
|
|
f0dder 13 Dec 2007, 10:35
You must have compared it to a really ancient GCC then, or without optimization enabled in GCC.
|
|||
13 Dec 2007, 10:35 |
|
|
Madis731 13 Dec 2007, 12:09
iivõl laaf
 from Agner's:{...supporting the SSE4 and SSE5 instruction sets...} |
|||
|
13 Dec 2007, 12:09 |
|
|
OzzY 20 Jan 2008, 03:59
rugxulo wrote: *bump* Thanks! I've been searching for such tool for a long time. It converts formats and also disassembles *.obj files. I didn't try it yet for COFF-OMF, but I'll try it tomorrow for linking FASM and D (DMD uses OMF). But for disassembling *.obj it's cool! Look this: Code: format MS COFF do_something: mov eax,2 mov ebx,3 add eax,ebx ret I assembled. And it disassembled it with objconv: Code: ; Disassembly of file: test.obj ; Sun Jan 20 00:52:22 2008 ; Mode: 32 bits ; Syntax: MASM/ML ; Instruction set: 80386 .386 option dotname .model flat .flat SEGMENT BYTE PUBLIC 'CODE' ; section number 1 .flat LABEL NEAR mov eax, 2 ; 0000 _ B8, 00000002 mov ebx, 3 ; 0005 _ BB, 00000003 add eax, ebx ; 000A _ 01. D8 ret ; 000C _ C3 .flat ENDS END Nice!
The nice thing is that this tool comes with source. Will learn a lot from it. |
|||
|
20 Jan 2008, 03:59 |
|
|
f0dder 20 Jan 2008, 09:27
Disassembling .obj is obviously easier than .exe, since you get a lot of symbol information to assist you... but cute nonetheless
If you make the function PUBLIC, the symbol name for your proc really should be picked up... |
|||
|
20 Jan 2008, 09:27 |
|
|
rugxulo 25 Jan 2008, 04:19
penguinglx wrote:
Probably Windows' fault (as mentioned), but I dunno personally. Anyways, you can supposedly "stubit" BC55 .EXEs to run in DOS via WDOSX (although I haven't tried, so I dunno how successful that is). BTW, DJGPP is a bit more robust and stable (still updated) vs. that old Borland compiler (esp. C++, I assume). But use whatever you want. penguinglx wrote:
Never tried RSXNTDJ, so I dunno how good it is. Yes, I noticed too that the links are dead, dunno why, hopefully someone archived it somewhere. Anyways, it's probably easier to just use MinGW or OpenWatcom (supports DOS and Win32). As far as OpenGL is concerned, try this (untested by me, heh, sorry if that annoys you, DOS386): 
Quote:
... and this: Quote:
|
|||
|
25 Jan 2008, 04:19 |
|
|
rugxulo 25 Jan 2008, 04:28
penguinglx wrote: Well , actually I could u NASM for my project but I dont know if NASM support SSE x instructions , So I decided to move my butt to FASM since it's been said that FASM support MMX,SSE,SSE2,3 , and one more thing I dont like NASM much coz it has too many syntaxes , and Im kinda lazy to read its doc From the latest 2.01 doc: Quote:
So yeah, it should support everything. But of course, FASM has been around longer, so it might be more stable (or faster, smaller, "better", heh), but feel free to try both. P.S. The argument is true about choosing what OS to target before using a compiler: e.g. Vista is horrible at DOS b/c DPMI is (always!) limited to 32 MB (hopefully fixed in SP1). However, if you've got XP or older, you should be fine (in that regard, at least). HX is good but doesn't support virtual memory (like DJGPP's CWSDPMI), so take that into consideration too (not that you probably care, but just FYI). |
|||
|
25 Jan 2008, 04:28 |
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2 < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|