I am reposting this information here for the many programmers who use MASM.

With thanks to Manhattan who showed everyone where the feedback to the dev team at Microsoft is, the current disposition from the development team seems to be to no longer support the INVOKE PROTO and OPTION PROLOGUE / EPILOGUE capacity in MASM. Without this capacity MASM would reduce down to just another mnemonic cruncher and that would be a net loss to so many people who have years of experience using MASM.

Over the years Microsoft have been very helpful to assembler programmers with the multiple ways of obtaining MASM to write code with so returning the compliment and giving then some useful feedback is a reasonable thing to do here. I have posted another suggestion to the development team at the following URL.

http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/ProductFeedback/viewFeedback.aspx?feedbackId=FDBK21759

It is in fact a rare opportunity to be able to give feedback on a development tool that you regularly use so NOW is the time to tell the dev team at Microsoft. It is no big deal to register, costs you nothing and you don't get spammed for it. Your comments and votes will help to keep MASM as a premium tool for assembler programming. Ignore MASM and it will go away.
Posted on 2005-02-22 08:05:49 by hutch--
we hope Win64MASM have follow characteristics:

    1. both of the utilities and the efficiency are been taken into account. not one is been taken into account.
    2. both of the inheritance and the aberrance are been taken into account. not one is been taken into account.
    3. every new characteristy has a example to explain.
    4. it need to adapt a huge project design.


regards
Posted on 2005-02-22 09:28:45 by dcskm4200
ok I don't understand the need, HLA proably will be ported to win64 so he can teach his class that that standard can become adopted further, why not let microsoft worry about something more important.
Posted on 2005-02-22 18:03:46 by archphase
HLA is hardly a replacement for MASM.
Posted on 2005-02-22 18:06:31 by donkey
dcskm4200,

I hope this means you went to the URL, joined up and VOTED, posting the suggestion here is of no use when you are trying to help Microsoft out by supporting their development team.
Posted on 2005-02-22 18:11:24 by hutch--
Microsoft has closed Hutch's thread as a duplicate, the response to Suzuki's thread asking for restoration of high level constructs is...

looks like we are going to support this now by popular demand...


http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/viewfeedback.aspx?feedbackid=db4193d3-14fa-49dc-84e5-f06089b7e496
Posted on 2005-02-22 19:57:21 by donkey
the masm high-level constructs do nothing but hinder learners and coders alike from learning the truly efficient methods, which are commonly completely overlooked. i'd rather like ml64 to stay stripped down, but versatile (like nasm/fasm). If i wanted to use the HLL directives, i would rather code it in c, and produce a more optimised output for the code anyways.
Posted on 2005-02-22 21:28:06 by Drocon
Hi Drocon,

The high level directives are there for you to ignore if you choose to. I do not use MASM, preferring GoAsm without any of those constructs except invoke but I also understand that some people prefer to use them and the popularity of MASM is due in a large part to them. Take them away and assembly can be difficult when dealing with large complex conditional blocks. For myself this does not present a real problem, however for beginners the high level constructs are a means to get up and running quickly, leaving the optimizing for later when they become more skilled. Without them, very few of the current users of assembly would ever have bothered to unravel all of the complexities of cmp/jcc blocks.
Posted on 2005-02-22 21:36:47 by donkey
HLA is hardly a replacement for MASM.


Hi Donkey,

As you know, the next generation HLA, V2.0 will be able to emit COFF object files. Plus, HLA is coming with very sophisticated macro features. I think this tool has a chance to replace MASM.
Posted on 2005-02-23 05:28:46 by Vortex
not smart enough to suggest a workaround, but invoke helped me, so I voted
Posted on 2005-02-23 11:47:29 by scurvydog
HLA is hardly a replacement for MASM.


Hi Donkey,

As you know, the next generation HLA, V2.0 will be able to emit COFF object files. Plus, HLA is coming with very sophisticated macro features. I think this tool has a chance to replace MASM.


Hi Vortex,

I was unaware that HLA v2 would be capable of emitting 64 bit code, I thought it was 32 bit only. We are talking about MASM64 here after all, MASM32 has all of the features already. If HLA v2 is capable of 64 bit then yes, it could possibly be a replacement for MASM64.
Posted on 2005-02-23 19:01:50 by donkey
This is the risk, like it or lump it MASM has been the driving engine that put assembler programming back at the leading edge in performance terms after it almost died in the middle 90s.

Back in 16 bit DOS MASM had no peers and there were applications fully developed in assembler at that time, some of them large ones from LOTUS and similar companies. QMODEM was rewritten in assembler from C and dropped to half its size ad performed far better.

This died in 1995 with win95 and it took years to get it all back up again. TASM failed, NASM failed and only with years of work from many people did MASM resurrect assembler.

In the shift to 64 bit Windows, if MASM dies after being gutted, assembler programming will die with it as nothing else has the pulling power.

We already have 64 bit versions of NASM and YASM but they will never be what MASM is because their designers don't want them to develop that way.

What you will get is CLR .NET code, even worse visual garbage generators and very little control over what you can produce. It was about that bad when win95 was introduced with VB and MFC style coding but now 10 years later the far more control over how the OS runs, lose low level capacity in a viable tools and have the crap left..

The cost of the death of MASM as a viable tool is a shift to C programming and the collapse of support for those who think they will benefit from MASM fading. HLA, FASM, GoAsm and similar. Without MASM as the draw card for assembler, all of these will suffer from collapsing support.
Posted on 2005-02-23 20:06:22 by hutch--
You think serious at that?


I say one thing, if there is a best assembler (dont know in what way I can call other assembler best... in a way that is nice for you:)) out there than masm you will switch to it? (yes/no)

I think there will exist a necesity to fill the "hole"... some one will try some I guess ;).
Posted on 2005-02-23 22:33:06 by rea

I think there will exist a necesity to fill the "hole"... some one will try some I guess Wink.


Dont worry :D I am working on it :P
Posted on 2005-02-24 06:53:52 by BogdanOntanu
:-D

Yes,

I want BogdanAsm to rise and take over the world.
Posted on 2005-02-24 08:26:55 by hutch--
I am quite happy with NASM :P
Posted on 2005-02-24 08:33:14 by SpooK
Im too, but I wish some more things ;).

By the way I supose how you feel, if the developers of nasm will trow it away I will feel bad, but I have the source :) or at less there are some "similar" options.
Posted on 2005-02-24 08:59:35 by rea
I think it's always a stupid idea to remove an existing feature in an "upgrade" release. And I'm not talking about just assemblers and compilers, but all types of software. Unless there's a darn good reason to drop something that's alredy out there, you should always try to be as compatible as possible, with your already established user base...

But given that, is it really a big deal if they drop INVOKE? Don't we, just on this board alone, have several home-brewed INVOKE macros, some better than the original? And if they did drop support, I'm sure we'ld see another dozen new macros, some maybe even better than what we have now... :-D

Besides, the whole PROTO / INVOKE structure may change anyway, if it's true that parms will be passed in regs instead of the stack, in Win64... By the way, does anybody have any more info on this, passing parms in regs, like here:

http://www.codegurus.be/codegurus/Programming/assembler&win64_en.htm#Win64

I haven't been able to find much on MSDN, beyond a little C stuff, and the usual .NET BS... :(
Posted on 2005-02-26 13:40:26 by S/390

Besides, the whole PROTO / INVOKE structure may change anyway, if it's true that parms will be passed in regs instead of the stack, in Win64... By the way, does anybody have any more info on this, passing parms in regs

Read the first reference here:
http://www.asmcommunity.net/board/viewtopic.php?p=157479#157479
Posted on 2005-02-26 14:12:41 by MazeGen
I don't really want Masm32 to died up, since it's an advantage of Microsoft to produce better code, if not all those VB6 compilers will run like hell.

Since there're many people that need money fast, so it will just the best option to learn VB6 and I think I will learn too to work later. I need to rise my country 8) for the good of humanity.

I don't think MS will close the Masm project, it has been very important for C and VB6 programmers.

So please let the high-level structures survive!
Posted on 2005-02-26 16:20:08 by Xor Stance