4 ms·

I'm sorry, MASM? All the cool kids use NASM or YASM.

by csense 2mo ago

mdp2021 2mo ago
Some still like FASM. Why NASM or YASM?
- sureglymop 2mo ago
  I prefer FASM but NASM is a strong second choice. But at the end of the day it really doesn't matter.. purely preference.
- sitzkrieg 2mo ago
  fasm absolutely rules on windows
- anta40 2mo ago
  Since NASM/YASM is written in C, it's more portable. On my ARM Mac, NASM works fine. FASM is cool (and still being development), but since it's written in 32-bit x86 asm, let's just say macOS is a 2nd class citizen.
ndesaulniers 2mo ago
The Linux kernel prefers GAS (or clang) w/ the C preprocessor. Luckily most of clang's assembler unit tests (and LLVM's MC layer unit tests) also use GAS style syntax.
- rurban 2mo ago
  Because the Intel syntax is limited, and pretty broken by binutils. I had to change my C compiler rcc to emit AT&T GAS, instead of Intel syntax, even if Intel syntax looks easier on the eye. GNU Assembler (GAS) ≥2.45 on x86-64: call and jmp to global labels in Intel syntax cause operand type mismatch errors. RCC emits .intel_syntax noprefix by default, but GAS ≥2.45 rejects direct branches to global symbols in this mode. Local labels (.L.xxx) work fine. Tests with user-defined function calls (bitops-1, fprintf-1, etc.) may fail to assemble under these versions. Root cause: rcc emits lea r11, [rip + sI] but GAS requires AT&T sI(%rip) for globals.
zerr 2mo ago
TASM.
userbinator 2mo ago
At least it's not HLA or GAS. Who else remembers the flamewars of the 90s between all the different factions of Asm programmers? MASM vs TASM vs RosAsm vs HLA (basically no one took GAS seriously at all)... it was in some ways quite similar to the Chrysler vs Ford vs GM wars.
- rramadass 2mo ago
  Comparison of assemblers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_assemblers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_assemblers I remember during the DOS era TASM was all the rage; it was wicked fast. Unfortunately didn't get an opportunity to do much assembly programming after moving to Windows/Unix. When Randall Hyde published his HLA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Level_Assembly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Level_Assembly) i remember thinking it was a good idea since it allowed many high-level language programmers to easily learn assembly programming as it included all the well-known higher-level programming constructs. It was a proper new language, but the assembly purists were all outraged and Hyde caught a lot of flak which i think was unjustified.
fithisux 2mo ago
I agree MASM is not easily available.

I'm sorry, MASM? All the cool kids use NASM or YASM.

by csense 2mo ago

I'm sorry, MASM? All the cool kids use NASM or YASM.

mdp2021 2mo ago

Some still like FASM. Why NASM or YASM?

sureglymop 2mo ago
I prefer FASM but NASM is a strong second choice. But at the end of the day it really doesn't matter.. purely preference.
sitzkrieg 2mo ago
fasm absolutely rules on windows
anta40 2mo ago
Since NASM/YASM is written in C, it's more portable. On my ARM Mac, NASM works fine. FASM is cool (and still being development), but since it's written in 32-bit x86 asm, let's just say macOS is a 2nd class citizen.

ndesaulniers 2mo ago

The Linux kernel prefers GAS (or clang) w/ the C preprocessor. Luckily most of clang's assembler unit tests (and LLVM's MC layer unit tests) also use GAS style syntax.

rurban 2mo ago
Because the Intel syntax is limited, and pretty broken by binutils. I had to change my C compiler rcc to emit AT&T GAS, instead of Intel syntax, even if Intel syntax looks easier on the eye. GNU Assembler (GAS) ≥2.45 on x86-64: call and jmp to global labels in Intel syntax cause operand type mismatch errors. RCC emits .intel_syntax noprefix by default, but GAS ≥2.45 rejects direct branches to global symbols in this mode. Local labels (.L.xxx) work fine. Tests with user-defined function calls (bitops-1, fprintf-1, etc.) may fail to assemble under these versions. Root cause: rcc emits lea r11, [rip + sI] but GAS requires AT&T sI(%rip) for globals.

zerr 2mo ago

TASM.

userbinator 2mo ago

At least it's not HLA or GAS. Who else remembers the flamewars of the 90s between all the different factions of Asm programmers? MASM vs TASM vs RosAsm vs HLA (basically no one took GAS seriously at all)... it was in some ways quite similar to the Chrysler vs Ford vs GM wars.

rramadass 2mo ago
Comparison of assemblers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_assemblers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_assemblers I remember during the DOS era TASM was all the rage; it was wicked fast. Unfortunately didn't get an opportunity to do much assembly programming after moving to Windows/Unix. When Randall Hyde published his HLA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Level_Assembly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Level_Assembly) i remember thinking it was a good idea since it allowed many high-level language programmers to easily learn assembly programming as it included all the well-known higher-level programming constructs. It was a proper new language, but the assembly purists were all outraged and Hyde caught a lot of flak which i think was unjustified.

fithisux 2mo ago

I agree MASM is not easily available.