NASM is good, but ...

[nobody]

but gas is dominant in Linux or *BSD, because of gcc,
also, masm is dominant in MS Windows.

This mean I have to use at least two different assemblers - nasm+gas or nasm+masm.
If so, I think it'll be better to use only gas or masm.

So it seems just for fun, isn't it?

[Frank Kotler]

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. For the sake of argument, lets say that gas is "dominant" in Linux/BSD, and Masm is "dominant" in MS Windows. How does it follow that you must use two different assemblers? Do you only listen to "Top 40" music? Would you only drive the most "popular" car?

If you would like to use only one assembler across platforms, Masm is out. Japheth's Jwasm - a "Masm clone" that also produces ELF output - might fill your needs. Or, Gas exists for MS Windows (although it's not "dominant"). Yasm accepts Nasm or Gas syntax, Fasm exists for Windows and Linux (not sure about BSD). Should we be including MacOSX along with Windows, Linux, and BSD in our list? In any case, Nasm covers them all, and as you observe, is "good" (a matter of opinion, I suppose...).

Yes, it's "fun" (a matter of opinion, again). I don't know about "just". Is there a question in there???

Best,
Frank

[Jim]

Why would you use two when there is one that targets both, with equally good code optimization.  (well, I dunno, maybe padding a byte here or there to make a jump on a cache line or something, I suppose the assmebler MIGHT optimize above what the user is capable of)...


This mean I have to use at least two different assemblers - nasm+gas or nasm+masm

if you're using nasm, you wouldn't need either of the others.  I dunno... just seems like a blathering idiot.  (sorry if that's rude)

[ilikenasm]

NASM is good, if add some useful routines as building in macro, such as type convertion function,  is best for me.