Re: JWasm v1.9 - now 1.91!!!
- From: Frank Kotler <fbkotler@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:31:17 -0400
japheth wrote:
Still segfaults, though. :(
It only displays "segmentation fault" if you feed it with erroneous
source. Experienced ASMers don't have bugs in their source. Try to
eliminate the errors and JWasm will reward you with a successful run.
"Deja moo." I've heard this bull before! :)
(In a discussion of whether RosAsm was "broken" to "not assemble a dictionary", someone fed a sonnet to several assemblers - Gas, for all its reputation as being "not fit for human consumption", picked out the word "in" and advised that the parameters weren't correct for "in". I was impressed!)
The segfault seems to be an Open Watcom issue in their Linux CRT. I've
launched a bug report to the OW newsgroup, perhaps something useful
might be the result eventually.
Excellent! I haven't got Open Watcom installed currently. Unless I'm mistaken, hpa is using it to produce the Windows/dos32 executables of Nasm. I think I once got a "nasm16" out of it (hard to build!). Interesting set of tools!
There is a preliminary JWasm v1.92 Linux binary available at
http://www.japheth.de/Download/jwasm192bl.zip
which has a workaround implemented for this issue.
Bingo! I got error messages from Dirk's code - fixed by adding ".386" (".286" - maybe ".186" - might have done it - complained about a shift by cl, for example...). I can't (presently) link it, but I got an object file that "looks okay". On the output of Agner Fog's "objconv" from "Herbert's Thingie", I get a cascade of errors, ending in "too many errors". This can be fixed, presumably. I haven't tackled it yet - probably will, I want to know why the C version is faster! Later maybe...
Thanks for the quick bugfix, Japheth!
Best,
Frank
.
- References:
- Re: JWasm v1.9 - now 1.91!!!
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: JWasm v1.9 - now 1.91!!!
- From: japheth
- Re: JWasm v1.9 - now 1.91!!!
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: JWasm v1.9 - now 1.91!!!
- From: japheth
- Re: JWasm v1.9 - now 1.91!!!
- Prev by Date: Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Next by Date: Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Previous by thread: Re: JWasm v1.9 - now 1.91!!!
- Next by thread: delete "0D"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|