Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/05/26/15:30:57
>In particular, they would like to attract MASM users, since they address
the differences
>and similarities between NASM and MASM throughout the documentation.
I don't think Simon wants to attract anybody. He needed an assembler,
didn't like what was out there, so he made his own and made it available to
others if they want it. Most maintainers of free software aren't actively
promoting that people use what they offer.
>Gas is not a full-featured assembler like NASM/TASM/MASM, and
>everyone concedes that.
I don't concede anything. If you are programming for djgpp then gas is
perfectly suitable. If you need more advanced features through gasp or M4
on top of it.
> So being able to code in AT&T style--which I am accustomed
> to doing
One of the main reasons for nasm was for a good Intel style assembler. Most
people who started out with 16 bit dos programming are intel style
programmers. You can't expect the authors of nasm to program a feature they
don't want. But, you have the source code, you can always add it yourself.
>Here the authors are comparing their NASM to other assemblers. The
>comment "Also, its syntax is horrible" is apparently a clear expression of
>the authors' distaste for anything not in the Intel-style.
Its not just source/destintation stuff. Look at the memory references.
That and all the prefixes of '%' or '$'. But, if you like AT&T syntax stick
with gas.
>2. Use of src,dest rather than dest,src: complete novices are stupefied by
> this notation (unless they read Hebrew or Chinese or some right->left
rather
> than left->right language).
It seems more natural to me. Like in C code you would assign a = b
translates to mov a,b.
Assignment usually occurs on the left.
>Andy, don't tell me you have never at any time of your existence found an
>unlicensed copy of any software on a computer owned or used by you, and
that you
>did not even use it?
I even register shareware too :) Seriously.
- Raw text -