Some comilers (like MASM) don't put into binary fie the code you entered in the source file (this is not true assembler).
1. Is FASM doing the same (not including optimization tips which make FASM so good)?
2. If I use inline assembler (for example in FreePascal), do I get what I type or compiler fix code to fit to high level instructions?
3. I know that many programers uses Assembler only inline with GCC (GNU C Compiler), does it really gave the same speed and binary size as manual codeing?

This is not the definition of an assembler...
Unless, of course, you're not going to allow any macro assembler out there to be a "true assembler".



Yes and no. FASM supports straight binary output. FASM also supports PE and ELF output. PE and ELF require the emission of code that doesn't appear in the assembly source file. This does not mean that FASM is not a "true assembler".

By your definition, only DEBUG and its ilk would qualify as a "true assembler".


Depends on the in-line assembler. GCC, for example, doesn't have any problems at all converting single instructions into multiple instructions at its whim.

Other in-line assemblers only assemble the statements you supply, yet the compiler emits other code before and after.



Depends on how it's written. Almost every HLL with an in-line assembler emits *some* code in addition to the code you write, and there is no way to turn this off. This is the fundamental difference between a HLL with an in-line assembler and a "true assembler". With a true assembler, it is possible to control all the machine instructions that appear in the executable (sans any requirements by the executable format that the linker or some other system must supply).

As FASM provides the ability to specify every executable machine instruction in a source file, it is a "true assembler".
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

You explained it to me very clearly. Thanks a lot.