Index
> Main > flat assembler 1.67.24Goto page 1, 2 Next |
| Author |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 03 Dec 2007, 20:39
As you may notice when looking at the Download section, the new version is out.
It includes two small, but noticeable changes. The first one is the refining of some of the error messages, for example, when you use the label 'alpha', but not define it, you're now going to get an error: Code: error: undefined symbol 'alpha' Also, when you redefine some constant with '=' operator (define it more than once), and try to forward-reference it, you're going to receive the message like: Code: error: symbol 'alpha' is out of scope The second change comes from the fact, that vid finally convinced me, that allowing to define constants from command line wouldn't break SSSO principle any more than allowing environment variables in file paths does. Thus this release introduces the '-d' option in command line, which allows you to predefine the symbolic constant. |
|||
03 Dec 2007, 20:39 |
|
|
xanatose 03 Dec 2007, 22:09
Thank you!!!!!
I really wanted to be able to define constants on the command line. |
|||
|
03 Dec 2007, 22:09 |
|
|
Ehtyar 04 Dec 2007, 00:07
Excellent, thanks Tomasz
Ehtyar. |
|||
|
04 Dec 2007, 00:07 |
|
|
kohlrak 04 Dec 2007, 01:10
This is good.
|
|||
|
04 Dec 2007, 01:10 |
|
|
rhyno_dagreat 05 Dec 2007, 04:36
Ooo! New version! =D Thank God I finished this section (the presentable part for class) of my OS before it came out so I wouldn't have to make any real modifications.
|
|||
|
05 Dec 2007, 04:36 |
|
|
edfed 05 Dec 2007, 04:53
there are bugs in missing simbol report.
it don't report the right symbol |
|||
|
05 Dec 2007, 04:53 |
|
|
LocoDelAssembly 05 Dec 2007, 05:04
edfed, in the two times you have said that you forgot to provide example, Tomasz is not some kind of God that can read your mind to find the bug and he is very busy to look up the code to find out if the bug actually exists, locate and fix it. If you are sure that there is a bug then use Compiler Internals forum using apporiate topic title plus minimal code demostrating the bug.
|
|||
|
05 Dec 2007, 05:04 |
|
|
edfed 05 Dec 2007, 05:06
ok, but later. i'm very tired now
|
|||
|
05 Dec 2007, 05:06 |
|
|
edfed 05 Dec 2007, 08:34
ok, i know exactlly what is the bug
when more than one symbol is missing, the error report this message: Code: error: undefined symbol 'last undefined symbol' .. display: .. instruction: first_indefined_symbol dd second_undefined_symbol .... source: code.asm |
|||
|
05 Dec 2007, 08:34 |
|
|
madmatt 05 Dec 2007, 09:51
I tried to recompile fasmw and get an error message "messages.inc : file not found". I looked inside all fasm folders and couldn't find it anywhere.
|
|||
|
05 Dec 2007, 09:51 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 05 Dec 2007, 10:47
Yeah, my few small mistakes. 'Silent update' is taking place.
Please re-download. |
|||
|
05 Dec 2007, 10:47 |
|
|
madmatt 05 Dec 2007, 11:36
Ok, good
 , thanks!  |
|||
|
05 Dec 2007, 11:36 |
|
|
Mac2004 07 Dec 2007, 08:56
Thomasz: Fasm 1.67.24 dos version behaves strangely under WinME. It seems to crash from time to time.
I changed back to version 1.67.22 which works like a charm... Anybody else having similar problems? regards, Mac2004 |
|||
|
07 Dec 2007, 08:56 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 07 Dec 2007, 09:37
Mac2004: are you able to make some dump of this crash? At least the EIP and general registers state would be helpful.
|
|||
|
07 Dec 2007, 09:37 |
|
|
revolution 07 Dec 2007, 13:35
Tomasz Grysztar wrote: The second change comes from the fact, that vid finally convinced me, that allowing to define constants from command line wouldn't break SSSO principle any more than allowing environment variables in file paths does. Thus this release introduces the '-d' option in command line, which allows you to predefine the symbolic constant. I hope we don't end up like some of those C compiling nightmares. Having to set the appropriate command line arguments just right else the whole thing falls over and breaks it's legs. I hope everyone can keep their restraint and not try to over use the defines of constants from the command line. |
|||
|
07 Dec 2007, 13:35 |
|
|
vid 07 Dec 2007, 14:12
Quote: I hope we don't end up like some of those C compiling nightmares. Having to set the appropriate command line arguments just right else the whole thing falls over and breaks it's legs. Like you said, this depends on people using FASM. There are cases when -d switch is only sane option. FASM can either - not support these cases, and don't give people chance to make mess of building process - support this cases, and allow people to make mess. This is IMHO very similar to C# vs. C++ discussion about pointers, C vs. Asm discussion about type-checking, etc... You can either give people something powerful that can be (and will be) misused, or you can give them something that can't be used in wrong way, but is less powerfull then. I think, assembly language itself is something powerful that can be used in wrong way easily, and so assembly compiler should be such too. I'd suggest everyone NOT to use -d until they have really good reason to do it. |
|||
|
07 Dec 2007, 14:12 |
|
|
edfed 07 Dec 2007, 14:21
yes, many coders use the command line version of fasm i think.
so that they need a simple manner to set constansts. using the fasmw ide doesn't give any utility to this stuff, but for command line coders, it's good. with the fasmx ide, you can modify constants and press F9, for command line fasm, you first need to open the file in a text editor, modify the constants, save the file, and finally call the fasm. it's boring, so vid ask for command line constant definition. note that this command line fasm version can be called from an other program to compile some code. and then, the caller program can easy set the constant in the command line. |
|||
|
07 Dec 2007, 14:21 |
|
|
revolution 07 Dec 2007, 14:30
I use the command line version exclusively so setting constants when running is absolutely no problem for me.
The main reason to resist using it is because there is no record of what was compiled. The option that was set is quickly lost when the command window is closed. No permanent record of what transpired remains. Currently I use batch files and small header/starter files to set assemble time tunable parameters. This is slightly more cumbersome with having to create a file and give it a good name, but the long term effect is worth it when I come back 3 months later and can refer to the files to help me remember what I was doing. |
|||
|
07 Dec 2007, 14:30 |
|
|
vid 07 Dec 2007, 14:39
Quote: it's boring, so vid ask for command line constant definition. Man, please, stop repeatedly posting things you have no idea about, claiming them to be fact. This is at least 10th case you did this. I didn't request -d because something was "boring", but rather because something was impossible to do in sane way without it, as I already described. I demonstrated this case to Tomasz, and he agreed. Quote: yes, many coders use the command line version of fasm i think. that is exactly what I and revolution warned about: NOT to overuse -d. Too much depending on command line *does* cause trouble. |
|||
|
07 Dec 2007, 14:39 |
|
| Goto page 1, 2 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|