The Place to Start for Operating System Developers
https://f.osdev.org/
Wow - I'm impressed. Released to the public domain.
He seems pretty good to me if we now have more code in the public domain!But remember that it was you who forced me to take this action. You are not a very good person.
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.
Nasm is needed for assembly. Is it not possible for them to collect unlicensed software?
I have an idea to write intel style assembler likekerravon wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 4:01 amSure. 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 consider that masm sets the standard for assembler syntax.Alexey1994 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 4:00 amI have an idea to write intel style assembler likekerravon wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 4:01 amSure. 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.
EAX = 1 => mov EAX, 1
EAX += 1 => add EAX, 1
Do you think this syntax would be useful?
It seems our profanity filter is suffering from the Penistone problem.Alexey1994 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 9:06 am So now I have a ideal assembler. So far only for bare 8086.
https://github.com/Alexey1994/ideal-@$$
I'll try to start a thread in the mod-only forum. In the mean time, all users of that link, please perform the obvious reverse substitution.Such optimisations are probably done for good reasons, with empirical evidence as to their effectiveness.Alexey1994 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 8:38 am So, I tried to write in my assembler myself. The feeling is pleasant, but I found a couple of critical flaws. Of course, I will commit. I found one interesting feature in the unfolding of if inside a loop or another if, namely, an unconditional jmp on the code, which contains the same unconditional jmp, can be done immediately on the second jmp. Assembler can optimize this, you just need to solve the "system of equations". I got interested in such optimization and found out that my beloved TCC can't do it. Nasm especially. I wonder if there are tools that can cut such jmp? I understand that there is gcc, but it's a piece of crap and not a compiler.
Well, these are obvious things. You seem to justify these tools. Nasm has an option -Ox, which supposedly does not affect optimization. Gcc has an option -fthread-jumps, which does much more than simply replace the address of one jump with another. And you only need to do such optimization always. Because this happens when expanding the if, while, for statements.thewrongchristian wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:03 pmSuch optimisations are probably done for good reasons, with empirical evidence as to their effectiveness.Alexey1994 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 8:38 am So, I tried to write in my assembler myself. The feeling is pleasant, but I found a couple of critical flaws. Of course, I will commit. I found one interesting feature in the unfolding of if inside a loop or another if, namely, an unconditional jmp on the code, which contains the same unconditional jmp, can be done immediately on the second jmp. Assembler can optimize this, you just need to solve the "system of equations". I got interested in such optimization and found out that my beloved TCC can't do it. Nasm especially. I wonder if there are tools that can cut such jmp? I understand that there is gcc, but it's a piece of crap and not a compiler.
Assemblers generally don't do such optimisations, or undo such optimisations.
Assemblers assemble the code given to them.
TCC is quick because it is simple, and can do simple optimisations only, but won't do more complex optimisations GCC or LLVM is capable of (which is more work and thus slower.)
TCC generated code won't match what GCC or LLVM can generate.
The repository with assemblers was renamed to https://github.com/Alexey1994/ideal-asm, since search engines did not appreciate my humornullplan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 12:15 pmIt seems our profanity filter is suffering from the Penistone problem.Alexey1994 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 9:06 am So now I have a ideal assembler. So far only for bare 8086.
https://github.com/Alexey1994/ideal-@$$