OSDev.org

Alexey1994 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 9:05 am

iansjack wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 11:29 pm The MIT licence requires exactly what you scorn. You are demanding of others something that you are too lazy to do.

Ok, the license has been changed.

Wow - I'm impressed. Released to the public domain.

But remember that it was you who forced me to take this action. You are not a very good person.

He seems pretty good to me if we now have more code in the public domain!

None of this affects the requirement to reproduce the licence for nasm (and possibly other software provided in the repo).

I make no claims to be a good person - it's irrelevant in this context.

iansjack wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 3:11 am None of this affects the requirement to reproduce the licence for nasm (and possibly other software provided in the repo).

Sure. Alexei - there are public domain assemblers available. That's what I use for PDOS/86 and PDOS/386. The 16-bit one (as86) is sufficiently masm-compatible for my purposes and the 32-bit one (pdas) is sufficiently gas-compatible for my purposes. Both are included on the PDOS/386 distribution as source and win32 executables.

iansjack wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 3:11 am None of this affects the requirement to reproduce the licence for nasm (and possibly other software provided in the repo).

Nasm is needed for assembly. Is it not possible for them to collect unlicensed software?

If so, then I am able to write an assembler https://github.com/Alexey1994/x86-disas ... me-ov-file Moreover, I began to rewrite a similar language into my own C language.

Those exe files that are in the repository are my own, collected from a C library written by me, but with the compiler of Fabricius Bellard.

kerravon wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 4:01 am

iansjack wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 3:11 am None of this affects the requirement to reproduce the licence for nasm (and possibly other software provided in the repo).

Sure. Alexei - there are public domain assemblers available. That's what I use for PDOS/86 and PDOS/386. The 16-bit one (as86) is sufficiently masm-compatible for my purposes and the 32-bit one (pdas) is sufficiently gas-compatible for my purposes. Both are included on the PDOS/386 distribution as source and win32 executables.

I have an idea to write intel style assembler like
EAX = 1 => mov EAX, 1
EAX += 1 => add EAX, 1
Do you think this syntax would be useful?

Alexey1994 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 4:00 am

kerravon wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 4:01 am

iansjack wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 3:11 am None of this affects the requirement to reproduce the licence for nasm (and possibly other software provided in the repo).

Sure. Alexei - there are public domain assemblers available. That's what I use for PDOS/86 and PDOS/386. The 16-bit one (as86) is sufficiently masm-compatible for my purposes and the 32-bit one (pdas) is sufficiently gas-compatible for my purposes. Both are included on the PDOS/386 distribution as source and win32 executables.

I have an idea to write intel style assembler like
EAX = 1 => mov EAX, 1
EAX += 1 => add EAX, 1
Do you think this syntax would be useful?

I consider that masm sets the standard for assembler syntax.

If you want to write a public domain masm-compatible assembler at least as good as as86 (which has been abandoned other than for bug fixes), I am interested.

Also - I just remembered that as86 also does masm 386 syntax so I have already converted my handwritten assembler to that format.

Note that I code to a common subset of masm for both 86 and 386 that also works under wasm.

So I have 3 assemblers that can assemble my code written in what I consider to be "industry standard x86 assembler". I realize that some dispute that - so please stop sending me hate mail via DM.

BFN. Paul.