OSDev.org
https://forum.osdev.org/

NASM vs. FASM
https://forum.osdev.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10402		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Jubbens [ Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:29 pm ]
Post subject:  NASM vs. FASM
I'm re-writing my OS, now in 100% my own code and 100% pure assembly. These are the two assembly compilers I was thinking of using, but I'm stuck betweern them.

Are there any benefits/drawbacks for OS development in each, or will they be pretty much the same? From what I'm hearing it looks like NASM should be the easiest here. Is there any other assemblers I should take a look at?

Thanks
Author:  Curufir [ Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:NASM vs. FASM
FASM has nice macro support, is (AFAIK) more actively developed and can be ported to your OS far more easily (It's self-assembling) than NASM (Which requires a full C environment).
Author:  Jubbens [ Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:NASM vs. FASM
wow....didn't know that. I'll use FASM unless someone suggests a better one for my uses.

And didn't FASM get ported to MinuetOS? (...or something? Been so long.) How does one port an assembler?
Author:  Dex4u [ Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:NASM vs. FASM
How many other assemblers come with a manual on how to convert the assembler to run on your new OS ?, see here:
http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=1972

I started with nasm on my OS, but changed to fasm, and i could never go back to nasm.
One of the best things i like about Fasm is error checking, nasm gives you a line number, not easy to find, but Fasm show you the content of the line that coursed the error.

So my advice is go with FASM.
Author:  Neo [ Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:NASM vs. FASM
Is there a CYGWIN(/Linux) version of FASM?
Author:  DruG5t0r3 [ Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:NASM vs. FASM
there is a linux one, google a bit dude...
Author:  pini [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re:NASM vs. FASM
I'm using FASM too.
I found some features very useful, compared to NASM : anonymous labels, macro support, and computing on symbols. For example of the last, you can define a label and then compute things like
Code:
((my_lbl shr 12) and 0xFF00) or 0x3
which is very useful to construct tables, like GDT and IDT without the need of construction code.
Author:  Pype.Clicker [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re:NASM vs. FASM
pini wrote:
I'm using FASM too.
I found some features very useful, compared to NASM :
anonymous labels,

Maybe you could elaborate a bit more on that one, but NASM had a lot of features concerning labels, among other local labels (e.g. you can have .loop at several places provided they are in different functions), macro-local labels, etc.

Quote:
macro support,

NASM has it too, and NASM's macros are especially powerful, allowing a context stack to be manipulated (so that your macros can nest, etc)

Quote:
and computing on symbols. For example of the last, you can define a label and then compute things like
Code:
((my_lbl shr 12) and 0xFF00) or 0x3
which is very useful to construct tables, like GDT and IDT without the need of construction code.

okay, that one was a bit harder to get working since i got messages saying "operator >> can only be applied on scalar values", but just patching to
Code:
[org 0]
my_lbl:

my_modified dd (((my_lbl-$$) >> 12) & 0xff00) | 3


Honnestly, the only "real" argument i see to prefer FASM is that it is self-compiling... yet i'm not sure it is a so great advantage: you could easily compile a version of NASM that matches your own OS on your DevStation (tm) and run the binary in your OS after that...
Author:  smiddy [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re:NASM vs. FASM
Sure, Pype.Clicker, it isn't as hyped a difference as may be presented. However, the work involved in creating a DevStation with a corresponding C compiler would take more time.

I used NASM for a while and then moved over to FASM as well. My main reasoning is that it has specific support for it. It is moving into 64-bit environments as well (I beleive AMD support is done).
Author:  bubach [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re:NASM vs. FASM
fasm is smaller and self-compiling, that should be enought reasons to choose it.
Other then that, it only differs on small syntax stuff.
Author:  Pype.Clicker [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re:NASM vs. FASM
if i compile NASM and then ndisasm it, it will produce self-compiling nasm ;)
Author:  Solar [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re:NASM vs. FASM
Regarding the self-assembling... I consider the Assembler to be a crutch that is necessary until higher level languages (C, C++, ...) become available for your target.

So I would be heavily working towards a complete C environment anyway... at which point the difference becomes mood.

Speed? I don't expect to reassemble that often, and even then, how big can the difference be, considering the power of the development systems we all are using today?

"More actively developed" weights much heavier in my opinion...

Just my 0.02?. (And since I am using GNU 'as' / AT&T syntax, you can probably discount me as nutcase anyway. :-D )
Author:  smiddy [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re:NASM vs. FASM
Solar your point is well taken, better environments breed better (more) off-spring (to be analogical). But the point was either NASM or FASM. I think FASM is more useable than NASM especially given its current AVAILABLE support. Most assembler programmers would contend that using an assembler written in assembler seems more closely related to the programming the programmer is doing. Not to be prejudiced but rather a purest to the ART form. But then again, I'm a cynic. ;)
Author:  bubach [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re:NASM vs. FASM
Pype.Clicker wrote:
if i compile NASM and then ndisasm it, it will produce self-compiling nasm ;)

Well, have fun trying to get that disasm output to assemble fine.. :P
Author:  Jubbens [ Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re:NASM vs. FASM
I think I opened Pandora's Box with this thread.

FASM it is.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/