X-Authentication-Warning: kendall.sfbr.org: jeffw set sender to jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org using -f
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:59:48 -0600
From: JT Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: djasm documentation patch 2/4
Message-ID: <20010113105948.A6836@kendall.sfbr.org>
Mail-Followup-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References: <20010113091207 DOT B6763 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org> <200101131601 DOT RAA25162 AT father DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <200101131601.RAA25162@father.ludd.luth.se>; from ams@ludd.luth.se on Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 05:01:22PM +0100
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

-: Well how limited is djasm's functionality really?

From djasm.info:

What's missing from `djasm'?
----------------------------

Although `djasm' can do quite a bit as it stands, there are a number of
things that experienced assembly-language programmers will miss.
Future versions of `djasm' may add support for some or all of these
items, but again, if you need a general-purpose assembler, you should
consider GAS or NASM.

   * Complete instruction set support.

   * Object files--what format(s)?

   * A companion 16-bit linker.

   * Segments (Is this really necessary?  Is it worth it?  Should one
     just use NASM instead?)

   * Macros.

   * Complete documentation.

   * Finish omf support (do you still want that, DJ?).

   * Enums (Done!).

   * Better symbol handling (allow forward references in most
     expressions).

   * Better section support--first stage, being able to swap between
     .text, .data and .bss at will; later, maybe `real' segment support
     (esp 16/32 bit control).

   * Finalize instruction support for 486.

   * Pentium* instructions.