On 03/10/2014 03:03 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 10.03.2014 13:52, schrieb Vsevolod Alekseyev:
I don't now remember the exact history behind each
replacement, but here they are.
- DGROUP is a problem; I comment it out
- So is ASSUME
- The syntax of SEGMENT is different
- Instead of .386p I want .686p
- Instead of _CODE I want _TEXT
The first three might be bugs in the assembler writer...
These sound more like a DOS thing. DGROUP is usually used in DOS
programs to specify which object file segments have to be merged in a
single physical segment (pointed by DS). See:
http://www.nasm.us/doc/nasmdoc7.html#section-7.4.2
(I know this is NASM's and not MASM's documentation, but it explains
what DGROUP is)
Also it would be possible to couple the generation of .386p/.686p to
the selected target processor. Is there a list of valid options
somewhere?
I did this for NASM for the i8086 target, see compiler/x86/agx86nsm.pas,
lines 1187..1199. Pretty sure it's just as easy to do for the MASM writer.
What's the difference between _CODE and _TEXT in MASM?
I don't know much about MASM (both the old DOS versions and the new
ones), because I used TASM back in the old days and then later switched
to NASM, but maybe it's another DOS thing?
Nikolay
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
