flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
![]() Goto page 1, 2 Next |
Author |
|
Tomasz Grysztar
The first beta version of fasm 1.51 is now available as official download on http://flatassembler.net - no new features this time, only some code revisions, optimizations for better speed of compilation of large projects, and some other small fixes.
|
|||
![]() |
|
comrade
Thanks!
|
|||
![]() |
|
fasm9
Hi,
FASM 1.51 beta 1 for MenuetOS? Is it difficult to porting? Excuse me (=newbie) -- |
|||
![]() |
|
mike.dld
fasm9 wrote: Is it difficult to porting? ask Ville, he knows ![]() i think no because things you need to change are messages processing and I/O |
|||
![]() |
|
fasm9
|
|||
![]() |
|
asmdemon
can u still provide the links for the last stable version(non Beta) on your site?
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
asmdemon
also, CTRL+HOME doesn't go to the begining of the file.
|
|||
![]() |
|
Tomasz Grysztar
Here you've got the old releases: http://fasm.sourceforge.net/archive/
But beta release in this case of fasm means stable, though not final. Actually 1.51 is probably even more stable than 1.50, as some crash-causing bugs were fixed. |
|||
![]() |
|
Tomasz Grysztar
asmdemon wrote: also, CTRL+HOME doesn't go to the begining of the file. Please read the "Keyboard commands for Windows version" from the http://flatassembler.net/. FASMW's keyboard layout is very traditional one (based on some old IDEs for DOS), and i'm very used to it. |
|||
![]() |
|
Tomasz Grysztar
You can adjust the memory settings in "Compiler setup" window.
But thanks to your notification I realized that I should increase the percent of memory that is used for additional memory block, as 1.51 uses it more that previous releases. I have fixed it and it again is able to compile the HELLO example with the default 4 MB memory setting. |
|||
![]() |
|
VitalOne
Thanks Privalov!
|
|||
![]() |
|
HarryTuttle
the best of all is the question who has better fun?
users who have new version or Privalov because of smart code solutions... I wish YOU Privalov much joy with your interests and work and very thank YOU for your help. Code: __FASM__ | | | 1 |Others -------- ________ 2 3 _________________ Microsoft: brings power of yesterday to computers of today. |
|||
![]() |
|
decard
Hi Privalov,
The following code doesn't want to compile (got undefined symbol): Code: global_label: jmp .local_label SOME_CONSTANT = 1 .local_label: Instead of global_label.local_label it produces SOME_CONSTANTS.local_label. Is this a bug? |
|||
![]() |
|
Tomasz Grysztar
It's intended - for parser labels and constants are the same thing. So the constant begins the new local labels space. Do you think I should change it? It would break backward-compatibility, but it would also allow to simplify some macros...
|
|||
![]() |
|
JohnFound
Absolutely the same effect is with local macro labels. So, in many cases we are forced to use double pointet labels ( local ..mylocal ).
And if we bring up this subject, why not to think about how to make multy level labels in the code. Now only data structures may have more than two levels of nested local labels, why not to make it for code too. Regards |
|||
![]() |
|
Tomasz Grysztar
Would that be really useful for something? I even don't have an idea how could it look like in terms of syntax.
Anyway I like the idea of disabling beginning new locals section on the numerical constant - and only one line in PARSER.INC needs to be changed to achieve it. Are you for it? |
|||
![]() |
|
decard
Yeah, IMO that's good idea. backward compatibility isn't an argument, I dont think that anybody uses numerical constants with local labels.
|
|||
![]() |
|
Tomasz Grysztar
What about data labels (like "something db 0")?
|
|||
![]() |
|
JohnFound
Privalov wrote: Would that be really useful for something? I even don't have an idea how could it look like in terms of syntax. Well, I have no idea too about syntax. ![]() ![]() But the names of the subroutines still have to be unique in the bounds of the whole project. So, if you write big project with big amount of procedures in the libraries, you have to use the names that must be unique among hundreds and thousends of names. If it is possible to use one more level of labels, there will be possible to set one common label for whole library and if there are equal names we may use them prefixed with library name. And so on, and so forth... Quote: Anyway I like the idea of disabling beginning new locals section on the numerical constant - and only one line in PARSER.INC needs to be changed to achieve it. Are you for it? I am for it. |
|||
![]() |
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|
Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube, Twitter.
Website powered by rwasa.