From:	"Andrew Crabtree" <andrewc AT rosemail DOT rose DOT hp DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: NASM? Thanks, but no thanks. (Was Re: Execution finished before started!)
Date:	Fri, 22 May 1998 09:46:24 -0700
Organization:	Hewlett-Packard, Roseville
Lines:	64
Message-ID:	<6k4a4u$5dg$1@rosenews.rose.hp.com>
References:	<199805221253 DOT OAA24000 AT basement DOT replay DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	ros51675cra.rose.hp.com
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Anonymous wrote in message <199805221253 DOT OAA24000 AT basement DOT replay DOT com>...

>I just downloaded NASM (v. .97 ?) and read the docs (HTML-formatted) and I
think
>I'll pass.

>(1) It has a "system" for using structures, but the definition and
instantiation
>of structures actually appears to be (intentionally made?) more complex
than
>what you'd get by sticking with the "workarounds" in GNU as
You seem to be under the impression that NASM was made as a replacement for
gas.  This is not true.  But structures in NASM are not the best
implementation.  Definition is pretty simple (from the docs)

          struc mytype

mt_long:  resd 1
mt_word:  resw 1
mt_byte:  resb 1
mt_str:   resb 32
          endstruc

But accessing them by manually adding offsets bites.


>(2) It is really its own brand of assembler, using a hybrid of directives
that the
>developers apparently thought were useful but requires a "refcard" 5 pages
long to
>keep track.
This was smart to many people (myself included).  Some of the old MASM ways
of doing these were dumb.  I hated all the borland compatibility stuff.
Better to start fresh with something that makes sense after you learn it.
It took a couple of days to learn nasm, but I have found it easy to remember
because it is somewhat intuitive, especially if you don't have previous
experience with other x86 assemblers.

>(3) It might be more useful if it had the ability to accept code in the
ning that it
>Bell Lab (AT&T/USL) instruction format.
Why?!?  That is what gas is for.

>I have to say one thing:  NASM's developers were right in making it
available
>without charge, since I can't imagine anyone buying something that hardly
makes
Thanks for sharing.  I'm sure they did it just for people like you who are
apparantly willing to pirate commercial software as well ...
>effort to hold an unlicensed (unpurchased) copy of TASM or MASM.  I will
concede

>  I will sit down this minute to use NASM if, say,25 people in this
newsgroup can tell me:

Use it or don't use it.  It is the only assembler that I use.  All that it
is really lacking is debug support.
I had used both tasm and gas previous to picking up nasm.

Andy

- Raw text -