Recently I have made some little fixes into fasm 1.45 and I'll probably release it as a new version soon. I've been receiving very few bug reports last days and most of them are false alarms. If you have still found some bugs, please let me know right now, so I will be able to fix it for 1.46 release (which is going to be a "fix-release" only, no new features, I'm trying to concentrate on the source documentation project now).
Posted on 2003-04-02 05:28:00 by Tomasz Grysztar

I've been receiving very few bug reports last days and most of them are false alarms.

Hehehe, that's how it's ment to be when well written software is "debugged"/used :)

I'm a bit curious, how far have you gotten in the documentation process?
Posted on 2003-04-02 05:41:32 by scientica
how to define a structure array?It's impossible to act like following in 1.45:
myStrucArray: times 512 POINT

how can I do that?

I think fasm should support anoymous structure definition or at least support,it would be great:

label0: times xtimes POINT

the following can't pass,I remember while 1.42 or ealier can?
format mz
entry main:start
struc POINT
{
.x db 0
.y db 0
}
struc tst x0,y0,z0
{
.x dw (x0 shr 16) ;or x0 and 0ffh
.y db y0
.z db z0

}
segment rdat use16
__lb tst main,0,0 ;this can't pass

segment main use16
start:
Posted on 2003-04-04 02:11:07 by Hume

Recently I have made some little fixes into fasm 1.45 and I'll probably release it as a new version soon. I've been receiving very few bug reports last days and most of them are false alarms. If you have still found some bugs, please let me know right now, so I will be able to fix it for 1.46 release (which is going to be a "fix-release" only, no new features, I'm trying to concentrate on the source documentation project now).


I am just reading on your FASM.PDF documentation... its a awesome piece of work and definatly worth to read! :)
Posted on 2003-04-04 02:43:55 by bazik
Hume:
To have an array of structures you should just reserve enough bytes like here:


myStrucArray: rb 512*sizeof.POINT

(it was already discussed somewhere on this board).
And you cannot use operators like shr on the relocatable symbols like segments.
Posted on 2003-04-04 03:06:12 by Tomasz Grysztar
Oh,I see.thx
I forgot the assembler must generate additional codes for relocatable symbols if you use other logical arithmetics.
Posted on 2003-04-04 07:07:41 by Hume
Privalov,
I've found that FASM produces incorrect opcode with 'pushd imm' in 16-bit code.
try eg.
pushd 5
then FASM gives 66h,6ah,66h :confused:
This actually doesn't border me much 'cause i can use 'push dword 5' instead
In case you're already aware of this, please ignore
Posted on 2003-04-04 12:59:43 by quiveror
Thanks!
It's fixed for 1.46 now.
Posted on 2003-04-04 17:02:06 by Tomasz Grysztar