OSDev.org

My modifications to NASM for general x86-64/x64/AMD64/EM64T support
have been uploaded to the NASM CVS at http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=6208

It will probably take some time for some possible bug fixes and
various "official" testing before it will be considered a stable
release, but you can be apart of this process to help bring it out as
a full release by compiling the latest CVS version and testing various
64-bit code against it!!!

Enjoy

Who needs nasm? yasm has effectively replaced it.. With a more.. free licence too

Brynet-Inc wrote:Who needs nasm? yasm has effectively replaced it.. With a more.. free licence too

That's not very nice. Nasm sounds cooler than yasm anyway.

Good work SpooK. I would do some testing, but I don't have anything to test at the moment.

Brynet-Inc wrote:Who needs nasm? yasm has effectively replaced it.. With a more.. free licence too

why need yasm, gas works better

ahh... why do people have different tastes, it makes the world so complicated.

Why not use FASM, I prefer it because it looks as though it would be easy(ish) to port to my OS. It also seems to support 64 bits.

Good job, Spook.

pretty cool job

well I prefer nasm because it's just perfect.
The syntax is the coolest, nasm is perfect tested out, there are no bugs, nasm is very fast, easy to handle, just perfect.

yasm isn't that cool, it's not tested out (there are sure bugs), as far as I can read from the website it supports other syntaxes, which I do not use and like
btw I tried yasm out, it shows some very uncool warnings

very good job SpooK, it would be really cool if you would continue the nasm project

greetings,

Toaster

os64dev wrote:why need yasm, gas works better

ahh... why do people have different tastes, it makes the world so complicated.

GAS syntax is great, But yasm supports both Intel and AT&T syntax..

But "Sorry" for being rude SpooK, I'm sure you worked hard on 64bit support, (Which yasm, has had for a lonnng time now.. )

@Brynet: A Single feature does not make the software... i have always felt a greater sense of pride in work done with NASM because it feels so clean and simplisitc. Of course, we all have our own opinions, if only one was right then everyone would use it.

Tyler wrote: if only one was right then everyone would use it.

One assembler to assemble them all, One assembler to allocate them, One assembler to link them all, and in the intel bind them

Thanks for the feedback, everyone

Edward wrote:Why not use FASM, I prefer it because it looks as though it would be easy(ish) to port to my OS. It also seems to support 64 bits.

Well, my next project involving assemblers will be a version of NASM, written in NASM. Unlike FASM, however, it will stick to being an actual macro assembler and not a low-level compiler.

Brynet-Inc wrote:

os64dev wrote:why need yasm, gas works better

ahh... why do people have different tastes, it makes the world so complicated.

GAS syntax is great, But yasm supports both Intel and AT&T syntax..

But "Sorry" for being rude SpooK, I'm sure you worked hard on 64bit support, (Which yasm, has had for a lonnng time now.. )

No offense taken, I am quite used to the myopic zealotry found commonly in close followers of BSD/GPL.

I completely despise the GPL and what it stands for, and I would choose a BSD license over GPL any day, but NASM is LGPL and I can live with that. In the end, licenses/contracts are just tools that only really matter to the authors, not the end users, anyway. If the zealots of the BSD/GPL wars actually gave a real damn about anything but their egos, they would release everything in to Public Domain

GAS (AT&T) syntax??? It reminds me of when my old dot-matrix printer would screw-up and print out garbage characters all over the place

Seriously though, there already is something that assembles GAS syntax. It is called, funnily enough, GAS. In trying to support both NASM and GAS syntax, YASM is forcing itself to be two average tools instead of one great tool.

I think YASM will continue to suffer from "name recognition" (or lack there-of) and coupled with the amount of serious bugs it has, these factors will keep YASM from being as popular as it could be.

BTW, Bryant, how is YASM's RDOFF support coming. I've heard it was broken last time while NASM's works fully INCLUDING the new 64-bit support. Let me know what the situation is

Tyler wrote:@Brynet: A Single feature does not make the software... i have always felt a greater sense of pride in work done with NASM because it feels so clean and simplisitc. Of course, we all have our own opinions, if only one was right then everyone would use it.

Perhaps. I think, overall, to have more tools means we have more ways to complete tasks. Everyone wins, as long as people leave their egos at the door

Toaster wrote:pretty cool job
very good job SpooK, it would be really cool if you would continue the nasm project.

I think I've sparked enough interest for other developers to jump-in and seal 64-bit support (i.e. release an official "stable" version.) This is a better scenario, as I am going on a pretty long vacation starting next week

My next major work with NASM, beyond my upkeep of the NASM32 Project, will be in the effort to make a version of NASM, written in NASM.

SpooK wrote:I completely despise the GPL and what it stands for, and I would choose a BSD license over GPL any day, but NASM is LGPL and I can live with that. In the end, licenses/contracts are just tools that only really matter to the authors, not the end users, anyway. If the zealots of the BSD/GPL wars actually gave a real damn about anything but their egos, they would release everything in to Public Domain

Well it isn't actually really possible to completely waver copyrights in reality. The public domain is a little more difficult that that. I disagree anyway, i believe people should be allowed to maintain copyright of there own hard work. If it was all so meaningless that they just through into the pubic domain then the software probably was not worth writing in the first place. The GPL, and BSD also stop someone like Microsoft from taking the code, selling it and not telling anyone where they got it and not having to release the source code.

Bryant? That's not my name SpooK... And YASM is fairly stable, It will gladly Assemble anything written originally for NASM.

Perhaps you should look at their project page... http://www.tortall.net/projects/yasm/

I myself think it's great to have a BSD licenced assembler that can handle code originally written for other assemblers.

Tyler wrote:The GPL, and BSD also stop someone like Microsoft from taking the code, selling it and not telling anyone where they got it and not having to release the source code.

Isn't there BSD code in the Windows networking system?

Alboin wrote:

Tyler wrote:The GPL, and BSD also stop someone like Microsoft from taking the code, selling it and not telling anyone where they got it and not having to release the source code.

Isn't there BSD code in the Windows networking system?

Yes, and they don't deny it and they follow the rules of the license... that is my point, they haven't just taken code from the public domain and given no credit.