DOS ain't dead - NASM versions 2.09.01, 2.09.02 available

ecm

Düsseldorf, Germany,
19.09.2010, 13:01

NASM versions 2.09.01, 2.09.02 available (Announce)

The NASM developers have released NASM versions 2.09.01 and 2.09.02.

Home page: http://www.nasm.us/
Download: http://www.nasm.us/pub/nasm/releasebuilds/2.09.02/

Changes in 2.09.02, 2010-09-17:
? Fix reversed tokens when %deftok produces more than one output token. (*)
? Fix segmentation fault on disassembling some VEX instructions.
? Missing %endif did not always cause error. (*)
? Fix typo in documentation.
? Compound context local preprocessor single line macro identifiers were not expanded early enough and as result lead to unresolved symbols.

Changes in 2.09.01, 2010-09-07:
? Fix NULL dereference on missed %deftok second parameter. (*)
? Fix NULL dereference on invalid %substr parameters.

(*) Bug reported by me.

---
l

Japheth

Germany (South),
19.09.2010, 18:45

@ ecm

NASM versions 2.09.01, 2.09.02 available

Post reply

> ? Compound context local preprocessor single line macro identifiers were
> not expanded early enough and as result lead to unresolved symbols.

"Compound context local preprocessor single line macro identifiers"

Could you clarify what this is in German? Perhaps

"zusammengesetzte, kontextlokale Präprozessoreinzelzeilenmakroidentifizierer"

---
MS-DOS forever!

ecm

Düsseldorf, Germany,
19.09.2010, 19:04

@ Japheth

NASM versions 2.09.01, 2.09.02 available

Post reply

> Perhaps
>
> "zusammengesetzte, kontextlokale
> Präprozessoreinzelzeilenmakroidentifizierer"

Pretty much. It makes sense in context. See this commit. The last test case shows one such compound identifier:

%assign %$_ur%$_uses %$_uses

Note that the identifier for the single-line macro given to %assign (as first parameter) is made of several parts. I think the bug was caused by preprocessor changes that would make this fail with an embedded context-local smacro in the identifier. For example:

%assign foo%$bar 38

This would not do what was expected of it because the context-local smacro %$bar would not be expanded, or so. I don't know the specifics.

---
l

Rugxulo Usono, 19.09.2010, 20:25 @ Japheth	NASM versions 2.09.01, 2.09.02 available Post reply
	> > ? Compound context local preprocessor single line macro identifiers were > > not expanded early enough and as result lead to unresolved symbols. > > "Compound context local preprocessor single line macro identifiers" > > Could you clarify what this is in German? Perhaps > > "zusammengesetzte, kontextlokale > Präprozessoreinzelzeilenmakroidentifizierer" gesundheit!

ecm Düsseldorf, Germany, 19.09.2010, 20:32 @ Rugxulo	NASM versions 2.09.01, 2.09.02 available Post reply
	> > "zusammengesetzte, kontextlokale > > Präprozessoreinzelzeilenmakroidentifizierer" > > gesundheit! You probably don't even know how it's pronounced

Rugxulo Usono, 20.09.2010, 04:22 @ ecm	NASM versions 2.09.01, 2.09.02 available Post reply
	> > > "zusammengesetzte, kontextlokale > > > Präprozessoreinzelzeilenmakroidentifizierer" > > > > gesundheit! > > You probably don't even know how it's pronounced You're right. I am a jelly donut.

marcov 22.09.2010, 13:46 @ ecm	NASM versions 2.09.01, 2.09.02 available Post reply
	> > > "zusammengesetzte, kontextlokale > > > Präprozessoreinzelzeilenmakroidentifizierer" > > > > gesundheit! > > You probably don't even know how it's pronounced I assume like "gezondheid" but then with a "u"

ecm

Düsseldorf, Germany,
22.09.2010, 14:26

@ marcov

NASM versions 2.09.01, 2.09.02 available

Post reply

> > > > "zusammengesetzte, kontextlokale
> > > > Präprozessoreinzelzeilenmakroidentifizierer"
> > >
> > > gesundheit! :rotfl:
> >
> > You probably don't even know how it's pronounced :-P
>
> I assume like "gezondheid" but then with a "u"

Kinda.. see here. You can listen to the actual (german) and alleged american pronunciation by clicking the icons next to the words. (That's better than communicating it through text because I don't know how you would pronounce f.e. "gezondheid".)

I actually meant the zusammengesetzten kontext-lokalen Präprozessor-Einzel-Zeilen-Makro-Identifizierer though. Now just imagine that faster and more fluent.

---
l

Rugxulo Usono, 22.09.2010, 22:30 @ ecm	NASM versions 2.09.01, 2.09.02 available Post reply
	> Kinda.. see here. > You can listen to the actual (german) and alleged american pronunciation by > clicking the icons next to the words. Both sound the exact same to me, same as is commonly pronounced here (U.S.). Yeah, reading German prose sounds like a blast (not).

ecm

Düsseldorf, Germany,
22.09.2010, 22:35

@ Rugxulo

NASM versions 2.09.01, 2.09.02 available

Post reply

> Both sound the exact same to me, same as is commonly pronounced here
> (U.S.).

Funny, the given american pronunciation sounds a little off for me. But maybe that's just me.

---
l

marcov

23.09.2010, 10:01

@ ecm

NASM versions 2.09.01, 2.09.02 available

Post reply

> > > You probably don't even know how it's pronounced :-P
> >
> > I assume like "gezondheid" but then with a "u"
>
> Kinda.. see here.

I understand _some_ German :-)

> You can listen to the actual (german) and alleged american pronunciation by
> clicking the icons next to the words. (That's better than communicating it
> through text because I don't know how you would pronounce f.e.
> "gezondheid".)

Keep the o short, and pronounce it like you read it. Avoid changing the "z" to effectively more of a "tz", or the d to a t. (much like "d"'s at the end of words in English) Dutch is pretty much more relaxed German.

> I actually meant the

Sounds better if you use Vorbearbeiter (Voruebersetzer?) or so instead of preprocessor IMHO

ecm

Düsseldorf, Germany,
23.09.2010, 15:01

@ marcov

NASM versions 2.09.01, 2.09.02 available

Post reply

> Sounds better if you use Vorbearbeiter (Voruebersetzer?) or so instead of
> preprocessor IMHO

Yeah but no one says that when they mean a compiler's preprocessor. A lot of computer tech terms are just used verbatim in german, so even just adapting the spelling from "Preprocessor" to "Präprozessor" is something. (I don't really care though. Programmers should use english if they use english programming languages. I.e. almost always.)

I'd rather go with "Vorübersetzer" though, that conveys the meaning better. ("Bearbeiter" (processor, editor) might describe the preprocessor better, but "Vorbearbeiter" doesn't convey that it runs before a compiler - as opposed to another "Bearbeiter".) "Compiler" also translates either as "Kompilierer" or "Übersetzer", where the latter fits with "Vorübersetzer".

---
l