Nasm

Anyone using NASM?
How is it? How about GAS, MASM, TASM?

I kind of like nasm. But I did have some problems writing windows applications with it. With masm this is really easy, but I hate the forced stupid bloated microsoft syntax that comes with it. The others I don't know.

My advise is to try nasm first. Nice, plain syntax that assembly should be. Unless of course you like the ms syntax...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVOEx

I kind of like nasm. But I did have some problems writing windows applications with it. With masm this is really easy, but I hate the forced stupid bloated microsoft syntax that comes with it. The others I don't know.

My advise is to try nasm first. Nice, plain syntax that assembly should be. Unless of course you like the ms syntax...

---

Any tutorial/something that may help a newbie?

I've downloaded nasm-2.06rc1 from sf.net and trying to compile this one but it says:
test.asm:4: error: parser: instruction expected

Code:

---

section .text
extern  _MessageBoxA@16
%if    __NASM_VERSION_ID__ >= 0x02030000
safeseh handler        ; register handler as "safe handler"
%endif
handler:
        push    DWORD 1 ; MB_OKCANCEL
        push    DWORD caption
        push    DWORD text
        push    DWORD 0
        call    _MessageBoxA@16
        sub    eax,1  ; incidentally suits as return value
                        ; for exception handler
        ret
global  _main
_main:
        push    DWORD handler
        push    DWORD [fs:0]
        mov    DWORD [fs:0],esp ; engage exception handler
        xor    eax,eax
        mov    eax,DWORD[eax]  ; cause exception
        pop    DWORD [fs:0]    ; disengage exception handler
        add    esp,4
        ret
text:  db      'OK to rethrow, CANCEL to generate core dump',0
caption:db      'SEGV',0
 
section .drectve info
        db      '/defaultlib:user32.lib /defaultlib:msvcrt.lib '

---

Got it from manual page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audinue

Anyone using NASM?
How is it? How about GAS, MASM, TASM?

---

I'd stay away from gas unless you actually need it. It was meant more as a back-end assembler for the GNU compiler suite, not an every day assembler, so it lacks some of the conveniences of other assemblers. But sometimes you can only accomplish certain things with gas.

When you don't need the special features of gas, I'd use NASM.

Both gas and NASM can produce native object code, so there's no problem using both of them in the same project if you want.