Talk:Tool Comparison: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Should AT&T syntax/Intel syntax/elf/a.out/flat link to independent articles? == |
== Should AT&T syntax/Intel syntax/elf/a.out/flat link to independent articles? == |
||
I was wondering if each file format should link to their own articles? -- |
I was wondering if each file format should link to their own articles? --''[[User:Brynet-Inc|Brynet-Inc]]'' |
||
I placed AT&T syntax and Intel syntax as sections of the article on assembly. Someone who is technologically savvy could link those sections in there. I think the file formats should link to their own articles, under maybe a Executable File Format category, under a more general File Format category? Just a suggestion. --[[User:FMota|FMota]] 16:52, 29 November 2006 (CST) |
I placed AT&T syntax and Intel syntax as sections of the article on assembly. Someone who is technologically savvy could link those sections in there. I think the file formats should link to their own articles, under maybe a Executable File Format category, under a more general File Format category? Just a suggestion. --[[User:FMota|FMota]] 16:52, 29 November 2006 (CST) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
== 16/32/64 bits? == |
== 16/32/64 bits? == |
||
To add or not to add a support 16/32/64-bit column? May be useful as nasm does not support it, as well as things like gas that chokes on 32 bit instructions when compiled for a 64 bit x86... |
To add or not to add a support 16/32/64-bit column? May be useful as nasm does not support it, as well as things like gas that chokes on 32 bit instructions when compiled for a 64 bit x86... |
||
Please remove if unwanted |
Please remove if unwanted --''[[User:Combuster|Combuster]]'' |
||
I've filled in the Yasm and Gas fields, Nice idea. --''[[User:Brynet-Inc|Brynet-Inc]]'' |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
==Other tools== |
|||
I like where this article's gone. Let's add more tools. Also, I need to fix my <nowiki>{{ref}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{note}}</nowiki> templates. --[[User:Jhawthorn|Jhawthorn]] 00:23, 1 December 2006 (CST) |
|||
The table comparing compilers has some minor issues. |
|||
I'm trying out this interesting tool called HLA, for High Level Assembler. Check it out at [http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/AsmTools/HLA/index.html] Should it be under assemblers or compilers. I'm thinking compilers because it relies on a separate assembler, yet it claims to be an assembler with a really advanced macro feature. --[[User:Mr.Confuzed|Mr.Confuzed]] 20:24, 3 December 2006 (CST) |
|||
It remains an assembler at the basic level, and therefore should be qualified as such - [[User:Combuster|Combuster]] 03:05, 4 December 2006 (CST) |
|||
==Visual Studio== |
|||
Visual Studio does support inline assembly (it isn't gas or nasm however) |
|||
It also can output .com files. [[User:Telexicon|Telexicon]] 06:19, 2 December 2006 (CST) |
|||
Added the info to the page, please check it -[[User:Combuster|Combuster]] 07:11, 2 December 2006 (CST) |
|||
== Compiler separation == |
|||
Wouldn't it be useful to split compilers by language (possible consequence: rename visual studio to Visual C++) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
== Watcom compiler == |
|||
AFAIK, WASM and the OpenWatcom compiler doesn't support x86-64, so there is some incorrect information there. |
|||
--[[User:Rdos|Rdos]] 10:17, 17 November 2012 (CST) |
|||
Latest revision as of 16:17, 17 November 2012
Should AT&T syntax/Intel syntax/elf/a.out/flat link to independent articles?
I was wondering if each file format should link to their own articles? --Brynet-Inc
I placed AT&T syntax and Intel syntax as sections of the article on assembly. Someone who is technologically savvy could link those sections in there. I think the file formats should link to their own articles, under maybe a Executable File Format category, under a more general File Format category? Just a suggestion. --FMota 16:52, 29 November 2006 (CST)
16/32/64 bits?
To add or not to add a support 16/32/64-bit column? May be useful as nasm does not support it, as well as things like gas that chokes on 32 bit instructions when compiled for a 64 bit x86... Please remove if unwanted --Combuster
I've filled in the Yasm and Gas fields, Nice idea. --Brynet-Inc
Other tools
I like where this article's gone. Let's add more tools. Also, I need to fix my {{ref}} and {{note}} templates. --Jhawthorn 00:23, 1 December 2006 (CST)
The table comparing compilers has some minor issues.
I'm trying out this interesting tool called HLA, for High Level Assembler. Check it out at [1] Should it be under assemblers or compilers. I'm thinking compilers because it relies on a separate assembler, yet it claims to be an assembler with a really advanced macro feature. --Mr.Confuzed 20:24, 3 December 2006 (CST)
It remains an assembler at the basic level, and therefore should be qualified as such - Combuster 03:05, 4 December 2006 (CST)
Visual Studio
Visual Studio does support inline assembly (it isn't gas or nasm however)
It also can output .com files. Telexicon 06:19, 2 December 2006 (CST)
Added the info to the page, please check it -Combuster 07:11, 2 December 2006 (CST)
Compiler separation
Wouldn't it be useful to split compilers by language (possible consequence: rename visual studio to Visual C++)
-Combuster 06:52, 2 December 2006 (CST)
Watcom compiler
AFAIK, WASM and the OpenWatcom compiler doesn't support x86-64, so there is some incorrect information there. --Rdos 10:17, 17 November 2012 (CST)