NASM vs. FASM
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:15 pm
Would anybody be able to give me a quick bit of info on their differences, etc? Thanks.
Page 1 of 1
Re:NASM vs. FASM
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:19 am
ee, the one has an f, while the other one a nee
Re:NASM vs. FASM
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:01 pm
Haven't used FASM but I know its smaller and easy to port but I think NASM probally has a better preprocessor etc.
Pete
Pete
Re:NASM vs. FASM
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 4:33 am
fasm is very similair to nasm but it can compile itself and is not written in C.
and if you ever need a assembler to your(?) OS it?s easy to port fasm..
the diffrens between it is not that huge.. i heard that ashley4 (spelling?) ported his os to fasm with only three changed lines..
/ Christoffer
and if you ever need a assembler to your(?) OS it?s easy to port fasm..
the diffrens between it is not that huge.. i heard that ashley4 (spelling?) ported his os to fasm with only three changed lines..
/ Christoffer
Re:NASM vs. FASM
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2004 4:13 pm
well that's quite a disadvantage. Main goals of an assembler should be stability and being free from bugs. It is much simpler to write complex projects in C than in assembler, it takes less time and is less bug-prone. That being said, having to choose from two unknown assemblers one written in C and the other in asm I would definitely choose the C one.(..)and is not written in C.
Cheers
Re:NASM vs. FASM
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2004 7:58 pm
why arent there any assemblers written in lisp ?!
Re:NASM vs. FASM
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2004 9:05 pm
Hold your horses, CodePoet. I can only do so many things at once. 