PureBasic Forums - English

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Franco.

Originally posted by Danilo

Fred changed the compiler v3.50 to use
FASM instead NASM and Resources with FASM
are much better to handle... so i think
real internal resources could be implemented
directly in the compiler with PB 3.50+
(registered PureBasic user)

Just some questions:

FASM instead of NASM, what benefit does PureBasic has out of it
(hope not only resources...)

What else

Hmm, I know that the Linux version of FASM is really new and there is a FASM version for MenuetOS.
Is there a FASM for AMIGA

Is NASM dead for PureBasic or is it possible to use both assembler

Would be nice to hear more

Have a nice day...

Franco

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Rings.

From version 3.5x beginning there would be a few new Compiler-Options:

[ ] Faster and smaller Executables(optimized asm) (using fasm)
[ ] Normal (Compatibility) (using nasm)
[ ] OnErrorCheck (Bloated with 5 kb Runtimes )
[ ] Bloated (using Microsoft Runtime-DLL's min. 500KB )to emulate VB


Please vote here for your favorite Compiler-Option!


Its a long way to the top if you wanna .....CodeGuru

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by TheBeck.

[ ] Faster and smaller Executables(optimized asm) (using fasm)
Sounds good.


[ ] Bloated (using Microsoft Runtime-DLL's min. 500KB )to emulate VB
Sounds scary, what will it be used for?

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Berikco.

Originally posted by Rings
[ ] Bloated (using Microsoft Runtime-DLL's min. 500KB )to emulate VB
Please vote here for your favorite Compiler-Option!

ROFL

Rings is joker past days

Regards,

Berikco

http://www.benny.zeb.be

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by fred.

FASM is faster and produce better code than NASM which is almost no more developped. Why not use it ?

Fred - AlphaSND

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by TheBeck.

[ ] Bloated (using Microsoft Runtime-DLL's min. 500KB )to emulate VB
Sounds scary, what will it be used for?

Ok, now I feel gullible.

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by TheBeck.

FASM is faster and produce better code than NASM which is almost no more developped. Why not use it ?

If it is faster and better then I am all for it. After all, that is why I bought PureBasic.

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by pusztry.

That sounds great. Any tentitive date for that Fred.

- Ryan


WinXP, PIII 800 MHz, 512MB RAM, SB Live 5.1, NVidia TNT 2 Ultra

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by fred.

v3.50.. Probably in one/two months.

Fred - AlphaSND

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Danilo.

Franco,

NASM is nearly dead for a long time. Sometimes
some guys continue working on it and after a while
its getting silent...

NASM was always known as being very bad at optimizations,
especially JUMPs.
Anyway... many ppl used NASM because of its clean syntax.

The Author of FASM wrote it because he was not satisfied
with the development of NASM.
That said, FASM is nearly 100% compatible with NASM, syntax-wise.

MACROs for example are different, but much more powerful.

FASM is a LowLevel Assembler. LowLevel.. that is what
using Assembly Language is all about.
With FASM you have _FULL_ control over all your code and
nothing is hidden (like in MASM that is more like C).

You can control all sections of the executable directly
with ASM-Source. Resources, Imports, Exports... all can
be controled directly in the source by using MACROs.
If you write plain ASM, you even dont need a linker.

Another thing is the speed difference.
FASM is written 100% in ASM (comes with source) and is
much faster than NASM, even with all the optimizations.
A bigger project compiles in 5 seconds with NASM,
where it takes only 3 seconds with FASM.

Take a look at the FASM site, get all stuff there
and _read the manual and examples carefully_: http://fasm.sourceforge.net/

There is also a small Editor available for FASM..
..completely written in FASM itself.

For library-development you can still use NASM
if this is your question.

cya,
...Danilo

(registered PureBasic user)

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Franco.

Thanks Danilo for the deeper comments...
This kind of information is really interesting.

I downloaded FASM some month ago when I was starting to play with asm.
Found it because MenuetOS (100% asm) uses it for development (sometimes I play with different OS...).

For library-development you can still use NASM
if this is your question.

Well also the OS side is in question.
As I said there is no FASM for Amiga, consequently NASM will be used for it (I suppose).
On the other hand, the source code of FASM is available...

Thanks again, and take care.


Have a nice day...

Franco

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Pupil.

Originally posted by Franco
Well also the OS side is in question.
As I said there is no FASM for Amiga, consequently NASM will be used for it (I suppose).
On the other hand, the source code of FASM is available...

Amiga already uses a totaly different asm compiler, so there really isn't any issue here. Doing a translation of the FASM asm source code to Amiga isn't an option, for one it's in pure x86 assembler and secondly the optimization routines are made to suit the x86 architecture and wouldn't help much on a MC680xx processor..in short, you would probably finish such a project faster if you begin from scratch..

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by tinman.

Originally posted by Pupil
architecture and wouldn't help much on a MC680xx processor..in short, you would probably finish such a project faster if you begin from scratch..

And it would still take longer to create an assembler better than phxass


--
It's not minimalist - I'm increasing efficiency by reducing input effort.
(Win98first ed. + SP1, PB3.40)

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by fred.

Yep, PhxASS is probably the best assemblet I've ever used..

Fred - AlphaSND

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Amiga5k.

[quote]
Found it because MenuetOS (100% asm) uses it for development (sometimes I play with different OS...).
[\quote]

Yes, I know this one! This OS is extremely small (less than 100k, I believe), and very very fast. It is surprisingly complete for such a small OS, though. It's not going to bump Windows or Linux off the top anytime soon, though. Unfortunately.

Anyway, it's nice to know that we can use Nasm or Fasm. It's nice to have choices.

Russell

***Commodore 64 - Over one million cycles per second, 16 vibrant colors, 3 incredible audio channels and 38,911 Basic Bytes Free! Who could ask for anything more?***