You are not logged in.


  • Index
  •  » Main
  •  » Why FASM instead of NASM ????

#1 2005-02-21 19:23:19

exhu
Guest

Why FASM instead of NASM ????

So why did you choose FASM?

 

#2 2005-02-22 08:31:48

bubach
Administrator
From: Trollhättan, Sweden
Registered: 2005-02-15
Posts: 366
PM  Website

Re: Why FASM instead of NASM ????

Becasue I think that fasm is better, and fasm is selfcompiling. Which means that I can port fasm to BOS much easier. With NASM I would have to port GCC first.
No real assembler should be made in C... wink
It shouldn't be to hard to use the new sources with NASM, just use version 0.02 and add on the new parts. If anyone is having trubble getting some source to run in NASM I'll try to help.

/ Christoffer

Offline

 

#3 2005-02-22 17:47:42

Dex4u
Active member
Registered: 2005-02-19
Posts: 132
PM

Re: Why FASM instead of NASM ????

Bubach is right no self respecting asm programmer, would use a assembler made in C.

But have said that, gcc use gas assembler as a backend smile.

Offline

 

#4 2005-02-26 23:21:47

crc
Guest

Re: Why FASM instead of NASM ????

no self respecting asm programmer, would use a assembler made in C

If I'm away from my x86 systems (say on the AIX box I'm administrator of which uses a PowerPC chip), I use nasm simply because it will run on a non-x86 architecture. Since I spend about half of each day working on this box, I refuse to be without useable tools that I'm familiar with. So there [i]are valid reasons to use an assembler written in C in some cases[/i].

 

#5 2005-02-27 13:43:37

bubach
Administrator
From: Trollhättan, Sweden
Registered: 2005-02-15
Posts: 366
PM  Website

Re: Why FASM instead of NASM ????

In that case you could use a PowerPC assembler instead.. wink

[EDIT] Sorry, didn't read the part that says: "I refuse to be without useable tools that I'm familiar with"

Offline

 

#6 2005-02-27 23:00:42

crc
Guest

Re: Why FASM instead of NASM ????

In that case you could use a PowerPC assembler instead.

Not if I'm cross-assembling  wink

 

#7 2005-02-28 11:40:50

smiddy
Active member
Registered: 2005-02-15
Posts: 183
PM

Re: Why FASM instead of NASM ????

crc wrote:

In that case you could use a PowerPC assembler instead.

Not if I'm cross-assembling  wink

Is cross-assembling like cross-dressing? lol


- [color=red]s[/color][color=blue]m[/color][color=red]i[/color][color=blue]d[/color][color=red]d[/color][color=blue]y[/color]

Offline

 

#8 2005-02-28 12:12:49

bubach
Administrator
From: Trollhättan, Sweden
Registered: 2005-02-15
Posts: 366
PM  Website

Re: Why FASM instead of NASM ????

crc wrote:

Not if I'm cross-assembling  wink

Then you are one of the very few that should use nasm, everybody else should use fasm (becasue it's nicer). tongue

Offline

 

#9 2005-02-28 13:23:03

smiddy
Active member
Registered: 2005-02-15
Posts: 183
PM

Re: Why FASM instead of NASM ????

Barring macros, FASM isn't too unlike NASM, if you code strictly in assembly (no if thens, macros, etc.). One nice thing about FASM is it has support and continues to be updated. Even commercially available assemblers are going by the wayside. With the current addition of 64-bit assembly included (1.59) it seems to be the only assembler in that arena.


- [color=red]s[/color][color=blue]m[/color][color=red]i[/color][color=blue]d[/color][color=red]d[/color][color=blue]y[/color]

Offline

 

#10 2005-02-28 13:29:40

bubach
Administrator
From: Trollhättan, Sweden
Registered: 2005-02-15
Posts: 366
PM  Website

Re: Why FASM instead of NASM ????

Not quite.. YASM has 64-bit support, but like NASM it's written in C.

Offline

 

#11 2005-02-28 13:41:15

smiddy
Active member
Registered: 2005-02-15
Posts: 183
PM

Re: Why FASM instead of NASM ????

Humm, I wasn't aware of that. I'll have to check it out, thanks for the info...


- [color=red]s[/color][color=blue]m[/color][color=red]i[/color][color=blue]d[/color][color=red]d[/color][color=blue]y[/color]

Offline

 

#12 2005-02-28 14:01:14

bubach
Administrator
From: Trollhättan, Sweden
Registered: 2005-02-15
Posts: 366
PM  Website

Re: Why FASM instead of NASM ????

Offline

 

#13 2005-03-01 16:00:20

DennisCGc
Guest

Re: Why FASM instead of NASM ????

Dex4u wrote:

no self respecting asm programmer, would use a assembler made in C.

Thanks for calling me a "no self respecting asm programmer". ;-)

 

#14 2005-03-01 18:34:40

bubach
Administrator
From: Trollhättan, Sweden
Registered: 2005-02-15
Posts: 366
PM  Website

Re: Why FASM instead of NASM ????

You may be forgiven if you change to fasm in a hurry... tongue

Offline

 

#15 2005-03-05 22:37:31

Dex4u
Active member
Registered: 2005-02-19
Posts: 132
PM

Re: Why FASM instead of NASM ????

DennisCGc, nasm is OK as it needs a assmebler for its backend smile .

Offline

 

#16 2005-03-06 13:15:26

DennisCGc
Member
From: Zoetermeer, The Netherlands
Registered: 2005-03-01
Posts: 49
PM  Website

Re: Why FASM instead of NASM ????

lol, ok :-) (well, maybe I'm planning it to write for FASM, since I want to compile it from my OS itself :-))

Offline

 

#17 2005-03-06 18:11:45

Dex4u
Active member
Registered: 2005-02-19
Posts: 132
PM

Re: Why FASM instead of NASM ????

How many other assembler writers, write a manual to help people port it ?.

Offline

 

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
BOS homepage © Copyright 2005 Christoffer Bubach
Strict XHTML and valid CSS.