From: beppu AT rigel DOT oac DOT uci DOT edu (John Beppu)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: nasm or ta2as
Date: 25 Jan 1997 19:27:45 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <5cdmrh$4c4@news.service.uci.edu>
References: <5cdk8c$8li AT flex DOT uunet DOT pipex DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rigel.oac.uci.edu
Keywords: assembler
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

In article <5cdk8c$8li AT flex DOT uunet DOT pipex DOT com>,
nikki <nikki AT gameboutique DOT co> wrote:

>unfortunately, nasm appears
>to no longer be maintained (looks like the project just died of death :( 

  That's not true.  In fact, version 0.93 was released on Friday.


> the code are 486 and 586 specific and it complains 'not a 386 
> instruction' or something similar. it also throws up a whole 
> buttload of errors at various points eg. LOCAL, .286, .MODEL LARGE 

  For one thing, if there be a ".286" in your MASM-styled code,
  I think it's very unlikely that [486,586] specific instructions
  would be in the source.

  Also...

  This is not a certainty, but if your assembly code has ".286" in
  it, I don't think it belongs in a program compiled with the 
  DJGPP package.  If there be any segment manipulation in your
  assembly code, the best course of action would be to rewrite
  the routines.

 
> and such. nasm would have been my ideal choice as it would handle 
> 586 code and produce the coff files i need but the syntax is again 
> slightly different, is there a tasm->nasm converter maybe around?  

  You might want to try out a .obj -> coff converter in the future
  if you [don't want,are unable] to change the source from TASM to
  NASMstyled assembly.  The first task at hand, however, may be to
  change your old segmented 16bit code to flat 32bit code.

>regards,
>nik



-- 
  beppu AT uci DOT edu .............................................................