Tool Comparison: Difference between revisions

From OSDev.wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[unchecked revision][unchecked revision]
Content added Content deleted
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
m (use cite extension)
 
(23 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 22: Line 22:
! [[GAS]]
! [[GAS]]
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}{{ref|1}}
| {{Yes}}<ref name="note1" group="Note" />
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}{{ref|2}}
| {{Yes}}<ref name="note2" group="Note" />
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}{{ref|3}}
| {{Yes}}<ref name="note3" group="Note" />
|-
|-
! [[NASM]]
! [[NASM]]
Line 40: Line 40:
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}{{ref|4}}
| {{Yes}}<ref name="note4" group="Note" />
|-
|-
! [[MASM]]
! [[YASM]]
| {{No}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
Line 51: Line 51:
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}{{ref|6}}
| {{Yes}}
|-
|-
! [[YASM]]
! [[FASM]]
| {{Yes}}
| {{No}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
Line 64: Line 64:
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
|-
|-
! [[FASM]]
! [[JWASM]]
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
| n/a
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
Line 75: Line 75:
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
|-
|-
! [[MASM]]<ref name="note5" group="Note" />
! [[JWASM]]
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
Line 84: Line 84:
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}<ref name="note6" group="Note" />
| {{No}}
|-
|-
! [[Sol_asm]]
! [[Sol_asm]]
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
| {{Yes}}{{ref|5}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
Line 97: Line 97:
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
|-
|-
! [[WASM]]
! [[AS86]]
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
Line 103: Line 103:
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
|-
! [[LLVM|llvm-mc]]
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
|}
|}


<references group="Note">
* {{note|1}} using the <code>.intel_syntax</code> directive. Several opcodes will still use the AT&T name.
<ref name="note1">Using the <code>.intel_syntax</code> directive. Several opcodes will still use the AT&T name.</ref>
* {{note|2}} While GAS normally writes only "pure" 32-bit i386 code, it has [http://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/as/i386_002d16bit.html#i386_002d16bit limited support] for writing code to run in real mode or in 16-bit protected mode code segments.
<ref name="note2">While GAS normally writes only "pure" 32-bit i386 code, it has [http://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/as/i386_002d16bit.html limited support] for writing code to run in real mode or in 16-bit protected mode code segments.</ref>
* {{note|3}} You have to choose the instruction set at compile time. GAS can not assemble for more than one operating mode at a time.
<ref name="note3">You have to choose the instruction set at compile time (of the assembler). GAS can not assemble for more than one operating mode at a time, i.e. you would need one GAS for 32bit and one GAS for 64bit if you'd want to mix those two.</ref>
* {{note|4}} 64-bit support is only available in NASM 2.x.
<ref name="note4">64-bit support is only available in NASM 2.x.</ref>
* {{note|5}} Sol_Asm uses its own syntax, which looks like the Intel syntax.
* {{note|6}} 64-bit support is only available in a separate executable, named ml64.
<ref name="note5">64-bit support is only available in a separate executable, named ml64.</ref>
<ref name="note6">Sol_Asm uses its own syntax, which looks like the Intel syntax.</ref>
</references>


==Compilers==
==Compilers==
Line 121: Line 134:
!
!
! Extensions
! Extensions
! colspan=7 | Output format
! colspan=8 | Output format
|-
|-
!
!
Line 130: Line 143:
! [[PE]]
! [[PE]]
! COFF
! COFF
! 16-bit code
! 16-bit code segments
! 32-bit code
! 32-bit code segments
! 64-bit code segments
|-
|-
! gcc
! [[GCC]]
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
Line 139: Line 154:
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| ?
| ?
| ?
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
|-
! [[LLVM|Clang]]
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{No}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{No}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
|-
|-
Line 147: Line 173:
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
| {{No}}<ref name="note7" group="Note" />
| {{No}}{{Ref|4}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| Version 4.X
| Version 4.X
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
|-
|-
Line 161: Line 188:
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
|-
|-
! [[Watcom]]
! watcom
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
Line 172: Line 200:
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
|-
! [[Smaller C]]
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{No}}
| {{Yes}} (incl. huge & unreal mode(l)s)<ref name="note8" group="Note" />
| {{Yes}}
| {{No}}
|}
|}


<references group="Note">
* {{Note|4}} Visual Studio can emit <code>.COM</code> files.
<ref name="note7">Visual Studio can emit <code>.COM</code> files.</ref>
<ref name="note8">Smaller C [https://github.com/alexfru/SmallerC/pull/25#issuecomment-516694067| wasn't really designed to properly support 16-bit and 64-bit CPUs].</ref>
</references>


==Linkers==
==Linkers==
Line 180: Line 223:
|-
|-
! rowspan=2 | Name
! rowspan=2 | Name
! rowspan=2 | OMF/OBJ
! colspan=5 | Input
! colspan=4 | Input
! colspan=5 | Output
! colspan=5 | Output
! rowspan=2 | Flat Binary Images
! rowspan=2 | Flat Binary Images
Line 189: Line 231:
! rowspan=2 | 32bit Code
! rowspan=2 | 32bit Code
|-
|-
! OMF/ OBJ
! Win32/ COFF
! Win32/ COFF
! ELF
! ELF
Line 316: Line 359:
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| WATCOM CODEVIEW DWARF
| WATCOM CODEVIEW DWARF
| {{Yes}}
|-
! [[smlrl]]
| {{No}}
| {{No}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{No}}
|
| {{Yes}}
| {{No}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| DOS/COM DOS/EXE MACH-O
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{No}}
| {{Yes}}
|-
! [[LLVM|LLD]]
|
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| {{Yes}}
|
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
|}
|}

Latest revision as of 11:53, 17 June 2024

This is a comparison of various operating system development tools.

x86 Assemblers

Syntax Output Format Instruction Set
AT&T Intel ELF a.out COFF flat 16 bit 32 bit 64 bit
GAS Yes Yes[Note 1] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes[Note 2] Yes Yes[Note 3]
NASM No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes[Note 4]
YASM Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
FASM No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
JWASM No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
MASM[Note 5] No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes[Note 6]
Sol_asm No Yes Yes No n/a Yes Yes Yes Yes
AS86 No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No
llvm-mc Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes
  1. ↑ Using the .intel_syntax directive. Several opcodes will still use the AT&T name.
  2. ↑ While GAS normally writes only "pure" 32-bit i386 code, it has limited support for writing code to run in real mode or in 16-bit protected mode code segments.
  3. ↑ You have to choose the instruction set at compile time (of the assembler). GAS can not assemble for more than one operating mode at a time, i.e. you would need one GAS for 32bit and one GAS for 64bit if you'd want to mix those two.
  4. ↑ 64-bit support is only available in NASM 2.x.
  5. ↑ 64-bit support is only available in a separate executable, named ml64.
  6. ↑ Sol_Asm uses its own syntax, which looks like the Intel syntax.

Compilers

Extensions Output format
Inline Assembly ELF a.out flat PE COFF 16-bit code segments 32-bit code segments 64-bit code segments
GCC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ? Yes Yes
Clang Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
msvc Yes No No No[Note 1] Yes Yes Version 4.X Yes Yes
icl Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Watcom Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Smaller C Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes (incl. huge & unreal mode(l)s)[Note 2] Yes No
  1. ↑ Visual Studio can emit .COM files.
  2. ↑ Smaller C wasn't really designed to properly support 16-bit and 64-bit CPUs.

Linkers

Name Input Output Flat Binary Images Set Code Address Library Support Supports Debug Info 32bit Code
OMF/ OBJ Win32/ COFF ELF A.OUT Others Win32/ PE Win32/ DLL ELF A.OUT Others
JLoc Yes No No No No DOS/COM Yes Yes No OMF/OBJ Yes
ALink Yes Yes No No DJGPP/COFF Yes Yes No No DOS/COM DOS/EXE No Yes Yes No Yes
LD Yes Yes Yes Yes DJGPP/COFF OMF/COFF Yes Yes Yes Yes various Yes Yes Yes ECOFF DWARF STABS Yes
TLink Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No DOS/EXE DOS/COM No Yes Yes OMF/OBJ Yes
Link Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No DOS/EXE DOS/COM LE No Yes Yes CODEVIEW DWARF Yes
VAL Yes No No No No DOS/EXE No No No Yes No
WLink Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No DOS/EXE DOS/COM LE Pharlap Novell_NLM Causeway QNX Yes Yes Yes WATCOM CODEVIEW DWARF Yes
smlrl No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes DOS/COM DOS/EXE MACH-O Yes Yes Yes No Yes
LLD Yes Yes Yes Yes
Retrieved from "https://osdev.wiki/wiki/Tool_Comparison?oldid=27506"