Thank you very much Natas!

:alright:

Regards,

Vortex
Posted on 2003-01-16 05:29:40 by Vortex
Thank you very much Lingo12!

:alright:

Regards,

Vortex
Posted on 2003-01-16 05:42:55 by Vortex
Will the executable be smaller when using MASM v7.0?
Posted on 2003-01-16 07:36:50 by yoursguideline

Will the executable be smaller when using MASM v7.0?

I have tested the new linker and assembler and I didnt notice any
decreases in file size. But I think there are some bug fixes(there should be).
The smallest executable with one MessageBox I have compiled were
"720Bytes" and executed on a Windows/2K system( ;) ). However, I recompiled
it with the new linker & assembler. But there was no change in filesize.
Posted on 2003-01-16 07:58:28 by natas
When i use MASM v7.0 to compile some asm files, their file size are the same 512KB. If i use the previous version MASM v6.15, their file size are very small e.g. 3KB
What's the problem?

The parameters of using masm (both version)
ML.EXE /c /coff /Cp /nologo /I

The parameters of using linker (both version)
LINK.EXE /SUBSYSTEM:WINDOWS /RELEASE /VERSION:4.0

P.S. I am using Windows 98SE
Posted on 2003-01-16 09:22:08 by yoursguideline

When i use MASM v7.0 to compile some asm files, their file size are the same 512KB. If i use the previous version MASM v6.15, their file size are very small e.g. 3KB
What's the problem?

The parameters of using masm (both version)
ML.EXE /c /coff /Cp /nologo /I

The parameters of using linker (both version)
LINK.EXE /SUBSYSTEM:WINDOWS /RELEASE /VERSION:4.0

P.S. I am using Windows 98SE
Are you saying that the with the new assembler & linker the .exe becomes
512KB and with the old assembler & linker the file is 3KB? This sounds all
to wierd to be true. I have compiled with both the old and new, but I didnt
notice any changes. Please post the source here so that I may have a
look at it. Because this sounds very very strange.
Posted on 2003-01-16 09:46:07 by natas

Are you saying that the with the new assembler & linker the .exe becomes
512KB and with the old assembler & linker the file is 3KB?


Right.
Here i attached the files for the test.
Posted on 2003-01-16 10:08:31 by yoursguideline
I have tested the file you attached with the new/old assembler/linker.
Both create the same filesize:
2,560 WinTemplate.exe OLD
2,560 WinTemplate.exe NEW

So I dont understand how you can get the sizes your talking about.
Im not running Windows/98. However, Hutch does and he havent
mentioned anything like that. Sorry but I dont know what else to
tell you.
Posted on 2003-01-16 10:28:57 by natas
Will you include it in MASM32 package?
Posted on 2003-01-17 00:30:48 by VashDStampede
natas, I get the size as same as yours in Windows2k SP3.

Anyone know why the size is 512KB (>>2.5KB ) when compiling in Windows98 with ML v7.0 ? :confused: :confused:
Posted on 2003-01-19 20:48:01 by yoursguideline
because 9x is ghey? =)
Posted on 2003-01-20 02:46:45 by f0dder
Guys,

I have ML.EXE and linkers from 6.0 up to the version 7 that comes with the XP DDK and NONE of them work any better than 6.14 which I can legally supply in MASM32.

It builds MMX and XMM code fine with support for OWORD data sizes, the linker from the win98ddk has the correct alignment without having to fiddle the options and the pair can build everything where some of the later combinations do not, libraries for instance.

While I would certainly like to see some aspects of ML.EXE properly upgraded to bring it into the 21st century, none of the changes I have seen so far from 6.14 do anything useful.

I have seen no Windows version variations on code whatsoever, I have win95b, win98se and win2k to play with here and the builds are all identical. The CMD.EXE in win2k is clearly faster than command.com in the win9x versions but no change in output at all.

Regards,

hutch@movsd.com
Posted on 2003-01-20 05:24:49 by hutch--