| NASM - The Netwide Assembler |
|
September 08, 2010, 11:59:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
| News: Welcome to the new NASM Forum! |
| Home | Help | Search | Calendar | Login | Register |
|
1
on: September 07, 2010, 07:26:02 PM
|
||
| Started by Keith Kanios - Last post by Keith Kanios | ||
|
Thanks, Keith. I did not feel the need to add to bug tracker as you were still coding, but rather simply providing a heads up.  Yep, that's why I quoted "bug report" as it wasn't official, but still a high priority. Thanks. -Keith |
||
|
2
on: September 07, 2010, 07:09:52 PM
|
||
| Started by Keith Kanios - Last post by Rob Neff | ||
|
I'll address Rob's "bug report" as soon as I can, give the rewrite some more time to marinate, and then start wrapping-up the loose ends so that it is production ready. Thanks, Keith. I did not feel the need to add to bug tracker as you were still coding, but rather simply providing a heads up. |
||
|
3
on: September 07, 2010, 06:43:26 PM
|
||
| Started by Keith Kanios - Last post by Keith Kanios | ||
|
%final can be used for post-preprocessing cleanups and whatnot, is stronger in conjunction with a macro call, and is arguably most useful when the file utilizing it is being pre-included via NASM's (-p) command line option. It's definitely not a killer feature, but can be useful in certain scenarios.
Perhaps, overall, %final should require a single/multi-line macro parameter? As for the segfaults, that is a result of my ~90% completion of the rewrite. I still have to wrap-up certain aspects of error checking and memory management. I'll address Rob's "bug report" as soon as I can, give the rewrite some more time to marinate, and then start wrapping-up the loose ends so that it is production ready. |
||
|
4
on: September 07, 2010, 06:29:33 PM
|
||
| Started by Rob Neff - Last post by Keith Kanios | ||
|
Back at sourceforge under intense development? Perhaps a slight change to index.html is in order?  Which part... the SourceForge part, or the intense development part?  |
||
|
5
on: September 07, 2010, 06:24:30 PM
|
||
| Started by Rob Neff - Last post by Keith Kanios | ||
|
I was also wondering if the 64-bit architecture class regarding "Intel 64" could be changed to "IA 64" to be more specific. Intel 64 (x86-64) is not the same thing as IA 64 (Itanium). |
||
|
6
on: September 07, 2010, 06:22:39 PM
|
||
| Started by madanra - Last post by Cyrill Gorcunov | ||
|
thanks, i'll take a look as only get time
|
||
|
7
on: September 07, 2010, 06:21:38 PM
|
||
| Started by cm - Last post by Cyrill Gorcunov | ||
|
this issue not yet fixed in 2.09.01, will be fixed in 2.09.02 I hope
|
||
|
8
on: September 07, 2010, 05:17:08 PM
|
||
| Started by Rob Neff - Last post by vaxman | ||
|
I was also wondering if the 64-bit architecture class regarding "Intel 64"
could be changed to "IA 64" to be more specific. |
||
|
9
on: September 06, 2010, 09:49:37 PM
|
||
| Started by madanra - Last post by Frank Kotler | ||
|
Okay, filed as BR3060662. Thanks again for the great feedback, Madanra!
Best, Frank |
||
|
10
on: September 06, 2010, 08:28:31 PM
|
||
| Started by cm - Last post by Cyrill Gorcunov | ||
|
sorry for initial comment that I've fixed this bug, no i didn't yet, it was a wrong topic
|
||
