Message-Id: <199704210823.KAA00779@math.amu.edu.pl> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Mark Habersack" Organization: PPP (Pesticide Powered Pumpkins) To: Lorier Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:24:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Usage of directory entries Reply-to: grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl CC: pierre AT tycho DOT com, opendos-developer AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: Precedence: bulk Once upon a time (on 19 Apr 97 at 12:55) Lorier said: > >> What are they currently? And how different is NASM? the difference of > >> AT&T -> Intel? or is it just formatting? :) > >OD sources use TASM (several versions), RASM (an internal DRI assembler) > >and MASM (also several versions). All Intel syntax. > > They didn't get the rights to RASM perhaps? Hmm... Ah well, possibly write a > TASM klone and port everything to that :) ;-)) I've just discovered another NASM limitation. It does not produce debug information, nor line information nor source file information in the generated .obj file. I use Soft-Ice for debugging and need the .map files to contain that exact information: source file and lines. Does anyone have OMF .obj format handy? I would then patch NASM to output such information. For know I have created a set of DJGPP CPP macros to enable generation of source compatible with TASM and NASM. I compile under TASM for debugging and under NASM for release ;-)) ================================================== Stand straight, look me in the eye and say goodbye Stand straight, we drifted past the point of reasons why. Yesterday starts tommorow, tommorow starts today And the problems seem to be we're picking up the pieces of a ricochet...