5 ms·

If you use windows, I think Microsoft still has a DDK somewhere that contains the final version of MASM, their macro assembler. I assume there's a gnu option o

by 13of40 11y ago

If you use windows, I think Microsoft still has a DDK somewhere that contains the final version of MASM, their macro assembler. I assume there's a gnu option out there too. Get one of those and look on google for a hello world tutorial. Write some user mode stuff. Then try a boot sector / boot loader. Use a VM for testing and development. Get a book like The Ultimate PC Hardware Guide and start writing a hardware abstraction layer for your new OS...

wolfgke 11y ago
> If you use windows, I think Microsoft still has a DDK somewhere that contains the final version of MASM, their macro assembler. Even simpler: Install Visual Studio 2015 Community (the current version) and run the "VS 2015 x86 Native Tools Command Prompt" or "VS 2015 x64 Native Tools Command Prompt" (under Windows 7 in the Start menu under "Visual Studio 2015" -> "Visual Studio Tools" -> "Windows Desktop Command Prompts"). Now simply run ml or ml64 (depending on the prompt that you opened). Voila - these are the current x86 or x64 versions (14.00.x) of the Microsoft Macro Assembler.
- groovy2shoes 11y ago
  Neat! I've also had pretty good luck with nasm on several platforms, including Windows, Linux, OS X, and DOS. fasm also looks pretty neat, but I haven't done much with it aside from a few toys for Menuet OS. And then there's yasm, which I haven't used, but must be fairly popular given its inclusion in several distros. There's GNU as (gas), which I've used quite a bit, but wouldn't really recommend because it uses strange "AT&T" syntax rather than the syntax you'll find in the Intel manuals. gas is also meant more as part of the GCC pipeline than as a standalone assembler, so even though it can function as one, it's not necessarily nice as one. I've been meaning to play around with the LLVM assembly language. It looks neat, with the bonus of being reasonably portable, but I haven't yet found the time. HLA (High Level Assembly) by Randall Hyde seems like an interesting way to slowly lower yourself into assembly language programming, but that's not how I cut my teeth, so I can't speak to its effectiveness.
  - Annatar 11y ago
    > There's GNU as (gas), which I've used quite a bit, but wouldn't really recommend because it uses strange "AT&T" syntax All AT & T syntax is, is move src, dst rather than intel's move into dst, src as far as I know, intel is the only company which did that, and to me, it is intuitive to move something somewhere, rather than to somewhere move something.
    - Narishma 11y ago
      I think most popular assemblers use dst,src not just Intel. I know z80, 68k, PPC and ARM do at least.
      - Annatar 11y ago
        PPC and Motorola 680## series, as well as (Ultra)SPARC all use src, dst.
    - pjmlp 11y ago
      Intel's syntax is most common, not the AT&T one. You only see it everywhere nowadays thanks to the rise of GNU/Linux and other open source UNIXes. If you translate mov into =, the syntax makes much more sense than AT&T. I mean mov dst, src is similar to dst = src
      - wolfgke 11y ago
        > Intel's syntax is most common, not the AT&T one. I'd be a little bit more careful with such a statement: Under Windows (and formerly DOS) Intel syntax is the common one, while under GNU/Linux and OSX the AT&T one is used. > If you translate mov into =, the syntax makes much more sense than AT&T. Though I prefer the Intel syntax, I'd be careful with "makes sense" here: According to http://stackoverflow.com/a/4119217/497193 http://stackoverflow.com/a/4119217/497193 people who grew up with MIPS seem to prefer the AT&T syntax since it is much more similar to MIPS assembler.
        11y ago

by 13of40 11y ago

wolfgke 11y ago

> If you use windows, I think Microsoft still has a DDK somewhere that contains the final version of MASM, their macro assembler. Even simpler: Install Visual Studio 2015 Community (the current version) and run the "VS 2015 x86 Native Tools Command Prompt" or "VS 2015 x64 Native Tools Command Prompt" (under Windows 7 in the Start menu under "Visual Studio 2015" -> "Visual Studio Tools" -> "Windows Desktop Command Prompts"). Now simply run ml or ml64 (depending on the prompt that you opened). Voila - these are the current x86 or x64 versions (14.00.x) of the Microsoft Macro Assembler.

groovy2shoes 11y ago
Neat! I've also had pretty good luck with nasm on several platforms, including Windows, Linux, OS X, and DOS. fasm also looks pretty neat, but I haven't done much with it aside from a few toys for Menuet OS. And then there's yasm, which I haven't used, but must be fairly popular given its inclusion in several distros. There's GNU as (gas), which I've used quite a bit, but wouldn't really recommend because it uses strange "AT&T" syntax rather than the syntax you'll find in the Intel manuals. gas is also meant more as part of the GCC pipeline than as a standalone assembler, so even though it can function as one, it's not necessarily nice as one. I've been meaning to play around with the LLVM assembly language. It looks neat, with the bonus of being reasonably portable, but I haven't yet found the time. HLA (High Level Assembly) by Randall Hyde seems like an interesting way to slowly lower yourself into assembly language programming, but that's not how I cut my teeth, so I can't speak to its effectiveness.
- Annatar 11y ago
  > There's GNU as (gas), which I've used quite a bit, but wouldn't really recommend because it uses strange "AT&T" syntax All AT & T syntax is, is move src, dst rather than intel's move into dst, src as far as I know, intel is the only company which did that, and to me, it is intuitive to move something somewhere, rather than to somewhere move something.
  - Narishma 11y ago
    I think most popular assemblers use dst,src not just Intel. I know z80, 68k, PPC and ARM do at least.
    - Annatar 11y ago
      PPC and Motorola 680## series, as well as (Ultra)SPARC all use src, dst.
  - pjmlp 11y ago
    Intel's syntax is most common, not the AT&T one. You only see it everywhere nowadays thanks to the rise of GNU/Linux and other open source UNIXes. If you translate mov into =, the syntax makes much more sense than AT&T. I mean mov dst, src is similar to dst = src
    - wolfgke 11y ago
      > Intel's syntax is most common, not the AT&T one. I'd be a little bit more careful with such a statement: Under Windows (and formerly DOS) Intel syntax is the common one, while under GNU/Linux and OSX the AT&T one is used. > If you translate mov into =, the syntax makes much more sense than AT&T. Though I prefer the Intel syntax, I'd be careful with "makes sense" here: According to http://stackoverflow.com/a/4119217/497193 http://stackoverflow.com/a/4119217/497193 people who grew up with MIPS seem to prefer the AT&T syntax since it is much more similar to MIPS assembler.
      - 11y ago