Re: Nasm Error
- From: Frank Kotler <fbkotler@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:50:03 GMT
fred smith wrote:
Frank Kotler wrote:
Seems a rather "exotic" platform to move development to. What's the advantage?
Best,
Frank
Thanks for the reply Frank, I am writing a Hobby OS. All of the bootloader, second stage stuff is written with Nasm,
Great!
all of the kernel is written in Watcom C,
Awww. Too bad. :)
with the odd Wasm module linked into it. I was doing this all previously under DOS.
Fine OS. Really lame - doesn't prevent you from walking all over it, and the hardware. Perfect for OS development!
GCC isnt an option for me, it would be too much of a headache to convert everything over, and the GNU assemblers horrible at&t syntax is something I want to stay as far away as I can from.
Okay. If you get used to it, AT&T syntax isn't "that bad", and there's the ".intel_syntax noprefix" option, but since it isn't "native" to OS/2, there isn't much advantage.
As Watcom and Nasm appeared to be on the OS/2 platform, and I had a spare box with the operating system doing nothing, I thought "why not".
"Why not?" indeed! ("closed source" might be an answer...)
I wanted to keep the same tools but move platforms.
Okay. Some would say you've moved from one "dead" OS to another. If it does what you need, it ain't "dead", in my book. I don't know much about OS/2 - said to be "well programmed", by those who know, I understand. I like "alternatives"... good luck with this one.
Best,
Frank
.
- References:
- Nasm Error
- From: fred smith
- Re: Nasm Error
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: Nasm Error
- From: fred smith
- Nasm Error
- Prev by Date: Re: how can i know the true religion?
- Next by Date: Re: Nasm Error
- Previous by thread: Re: Nasm Error
- Next by thread: Re: Nasm Error
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|