Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: NathanCBaker@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 23, 4:05 pm, Herbert Kleebauer <k...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I would like to see a text pre-processing subsystem (completely
independent from the macro subsystem) which is called by NASM
with each source code line read. This subsystem then can modify
or replace the original source code line and then give it back to
NASM for normal processing (including macro expansion). This
pre-processing sub system must be programmable, so maybe the best
would be to include an already existing GPLed BASIC or FORTH
interpreter. An other way would be to implement a simple virtual
machine (a few instructions, 64k code, data and stack should be
enough so only a few lines of C code should be necessary to implement
it).
I nominate the public domain HLABasic2 to fill this task:
http://hlaex.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/hlaex/generic/HLABasic2/
With such a pre-processing sub system any NASM user can easily define
his preferred syntax (by loading the appropriate program for the
interpreter from the assembly source code file or an include file).
On the other side, this could lead to completely different looking
NASM source code files. NASM can compile them all, but no NASM
user will be able to easily read or understand a NASM source
written by somebody else.
An ideal goal! :)
Nathan.
.
- References:
- NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Herbert Kleebauer
- Re: Windela
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Herbert Kleebauer
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Chuck Crayne
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Herbert Kleebauer
- NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- 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: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Next by thread: Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|