I was poking around at the Visual Studio.NET files, I noticed that all .asm files automatically open up in the IDE (and compile)... then I poke around a little more, I can't find the version for Link.exde, but for ML.EXE it's MASM 7.00.9254. I don't know what features are new, can't locate any documentation whatsover but just thought I'd throw that out there...

Update: Link.exe is the same 7.00.9254

Update 2: nmake.exe is also version 7.00.9254 (as of beta 2)

Update 3: There is no ml.err for 7.0, but that doesn't seem to stop it...

Update 4: Unfortunately, Link.EXE 7.00.9254 won't work unless there is a path in the environment variables pointing to the VC7 location where a required DLL (used by VC++7.0) is located. It appears this version of MASM 7.0 (I'm using it with RadASM right now) is integrated with VC 7. ML.EXE works fine, but link.exe will not work without VC7 (Visual Studio.NET).

Thanks,
_Shawn
Posted on 2001-10-30 10:40:17 by _Shawn
I've seen another 7.0 version that supported PowerPC processors, looks like that has been removed.
Posted on 2001-10-30 14:10:05 by bitRAKE
Is it possibly to download this wonderfull versions of MASM somewhere?
Posted on 2001-10-30 14:53:21 by Aquila
The only place I know of to download it currently is with the Visual Studio.NET beta 2, or RC1 which just came out... I'm using beta 2, so the version may have changed...


Thanks,
_Shawn
Posted on 2001-10-30 17:13:16 by _Shawn
Movingfulcrum sent me the EXE only for the version I mentioned, but it's older than the current VS.NET beta 2 version.
Posted on 2001-10-30 18:30:08 by bitRAKE
why would vs.net even need masm? doesn't it use the same run-time dependent, p-code garbage for all the languages?
Posted on 2001-10-30 21:06:18 by Sloat

why would vs.net even need masm? doesn't it use the same run-time dependent, p-code garbage for all the languages?


P-Code? What are you talking about? A language doesn't have to be in P-Code to be dependent on Runtimes.. Believe it or not, C++ programs for Win32 also require a Runtime file, WHICH by the way comes installed with Windows, so it's not visible... Visual Studio never compiled anything with P-Code, Only VB was compiled in P-Code, and that was until Version 6.. Version 6 can compile to machine language now, but it still needs the runtime files to get the forms etc... But VS.NET doesn't do P-Code.. I dunno what you're talking about..??

By the way, VB or VC++ get reduced to ASM files (you can choose to generate Listing files to see the ASM code), and from there, they use an assembler to create .obj files (.obj files are similar, but not compatible with different languages because of the symbols in them, you could modify and rebuild a listing file from C++ program, and link it with a VB file...) and then these .obj files get linked accordingly to create the exe file...
Posted on 2001-10-31 00:21:48 by Falcon
You may not believe it, but I have articles from the MS web site that talk about how to use #Compiler directives to have VC++ conditionally compile blocks of code into p-code. They also go on to say that more than half of Office was compiled in p-code and using native compiler for the speed intensive stuff, such as calculations in excel. Hard to believe, but... from their own lips, they were touting all the reasons why we should do the same. Once VC 6 shipped, there aren't many more articles on it.

VS.NET uses it because VC 7.0 doesn't assume to compile to .NET runtime, it defaults to native compile. If you break in a VB.NET project and set a break point, and in the debugger choose "dissassembly" you'll see that even the VB.NET was compiled into x86 code, also. You can go into the listing and debug it thereby.

However, as I've noticed, you can't use the Linker without VC 7 installed. The ML seems to work fine with or without it.


Thanks,
_Shawn
Posted on 2001-10-31 01:05:37 by _Shawn

Believe it or not, C++ programs for Win32 also require a Runtime file, WHICH by the way comes installed with Windows, so it's not visible.

You are a little incorrect there Falcon. Only C++ apps done with MFC require the runtime dll, "pure" windows apps done in VC++ don't need it.

It is good that VC7 defaults to native compile, otherwise there would be a lot of pissed off C++ programmers :)
Posted on 2001-10-31 04:32:19 by sluggy
You *can* choose to link "normal" C/C++ files dynamically, in which
case they'll depend on some runtime DLL. Possibly msvcrt.dll, depending
on whether or not it's a multithreaded app.

Now, for the interesting thing. MSVC has, afaik, for quite some time
compiled to an internal p-code format. This p-code is the run through
the optimizer, and finally native code has been output. Assemblers
are not used in the compile process, and the listing file is just that -
a listing.
I don't know if other people than the GNU guys are hanging on to
the "we should always produce asm output and assemble it" foolishness
(too bad, their compiler is sorta OK), but VC doesn't.

Fun thing about VB6 is that it uses the same p-code format as VC6,
and thus they can use (and do use) the same optimizer. There's
not much point in compiling VB to native though, it still depends on
the runtime for virtually everything, and that's where your bottleneck is.
P-code is smaller, and afaik doesn't run all that bad. Especially not
with the new .net stuff.

I'm not too much a fan of p-code in final executables (I'm all for it
as an intermediary form in a compiler, though), but I think we should
try having an open mind about this, and not judge it before we have
had our hands in it. Scali told me he had been able to get an app
running faster with .net p-code than with native code, and it's not
like he's a bad coder...

Also, and this is probably a bit too optimistic :), p-code would allow
us to conquer other platforms, like the uberleet mac processors.
Might be fun to see what sort of speeds we could have on those.

Keep an open mind, buddies :cool:.
Posted on 2001-10-31 04:52:28 by f0dder
f0dder,

MAC SCHMAK, been brushing up on you PPC assembler lately ?

P-code has its place, its slow and trivial but a lot of code that is written that is more or less useful does not need the speed or performance and the machines have enough disk space to handle the runtimes so it does the job.

Native code in VB does run a bit better so if you are stuck with VB, you may as well use it. Like normal if you are writing something that needs to be both small and fast, you start looking for a performance compiler and if you need it to be smaller and faster, you can write it in assembler, horses for courses I guess.

I wonder how long it will be until working with Microsoft operating systems will be no more than scripting for the various runtime engines that are built into Windows ?

Regards,

hutch@movsd.com
Posted on 2001-10-31 07:33:48 by hutch--
I have the ml.exe that assembles for PowerPC. It's version 7.01.6353, but it cannot be so new. I took it from an SDK for the MS Flight Simulator, so it's not so new. I still have not been able to do anything with it, since the "normal" MASM32 linker does refuse to work with it. If someone's interested, I can send it. I cannot upload it here, it's 200 kB.

'Bye, Kefren
Posted on 2001-10-31 07:46:42 by kefren
I wonder how long it will be until working with Microsoft operating systems will be no more than scripting for the various runtime engines that are built into Windows ?


This is probly better off for the crusades, but... seeing as how most businesses like MS tools and propaganda, and the way things are going and have been going, it's very likely that program (in an MS workshop) will be nothing more than scripting. VB is pretty much "glue". Who wants to fight COM in C++? It's sad because it devalues those of us who do know how to program. Jobs will always be there and so will need, but, lets face it, to keep up, more often than not, you'll have to "stoop" to a lower level to keep competence. Those who don't, are lucky that they can still be advanced but they often don't get the same respect. At least in all the places I've seen. Managers like people who get it done fast and now and with MS tools. Those who don't like VB or MS propaganda, aren't viewed the same way by managers.

I wonder what .NET will do for. I, for one, am an avid MS fan. However, with .NET, I feel very sick inside to think about what they're doing and I'm not buying into it. I have to use .NET for work, but in my spare time, I'm looking for an alternate compiler, I'm thinking about going to Codewarrior. Besides, it's still possible to create something that hasn't already been done when you use non-MS tools.


Thanks,
_Shawn
Posted on 2001-10-31 09:36:54 by _Shawn
hi bitRake,
I see you finally changed your avataar:grin:

Movingfulcrum sent me the EXE only for the version I mentioned, but it's older than the current VS.NET beta 2 version.


umm... which exe r u talking abt??? I dont have masm7 with me.
Posted on 2001-10-31 10:06:26 by MovingFulcrum
I liked bitrakes old avatar better :(. And with .NET, I believe you can
still compile to native code and still use the native api.
Posted on 2001-10-31 10:17:24 by f0dder
What's this again?

I don't know if other people than the GNU guys are hanging on to
the "we should always produce asm output and assemble it" foolishness
(too bad, their compiler is sorta OK), but VC doesn't.
Posted on 2001-10-31 13:12:06 by latigo
Sorry, MovingFulcrum, thought I got the proggie from you? Well, some nice person sent it too me - your just the person that popped into my head. ;)

f0dder, you don't like MAME? :) That little house was cool.

.NET doesn't take anything away - it just adds another layer of abstraction. I hear the C/++ compiles better for newer processors, too (f0dder). M$ is strengthen their grip for world domonation with .NET? Companies I've worked for only use M$ stuff on the desktop - M$ doesn't like this, they want to compete with Oracle. They are manuvering the competition out of existance. I don't think it will happen though. The companies I've worked for have quite a bit of momentum with Java,Delphi and Oracle. They aren't going to change gears at this stage. Ever heard of business continuity? It would be foolish to throw all your eggs in one basket. There is power in diversity when your big with many arms. :)
Posted on 2001-10-31 16:46:41 by bitRAKE
I must admit Ricky I liked your old avatar, the new one looks professional, corporate, slick etc ... but the old one had a LIVE feel to it, like something was happening inside somewhere.

Regards,

hutch@movsd.com
Posted on 2001-10-31 17:43:03 by hutch--
Peer presure got to me.
How's that for a LIVE feel. :)

Posted on 2001-10-31 18:23:43 by bitRAKE
hmm... I still like the house better than all the three you hae put up till now(including ur current avatar).
Posted on 2001-10-31 21:30:56 by MovingFulcrum