[openbeos] Re: Nasm
- From: "David McPaul" <dlmcpaul@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:34:08 +1100
Yep I am hitting the same problem.
I have just been adding the defines that are missing for the moment.
I am assuming that nasm will emit 64bit values when compiling asm
sources with 64bit code in them. That shouldn't affect how gcc
compiles nasm.
Nasm is I believe written in standard c99 C code so gcc with a few
fixes for c99 compatability will be ok.
If not then I am going to have to look at alternatives. (or most
likely just comment out the SSE4 stuff I am trying to get compiled
[probably a better idea anyway, who is running a BeOS machine on a
SSE4 capable CPU?])
On 04/02/2008, Curtis Wanner <katisu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone looked at porting a newer version of nasm than 0.98.35
>
> I just played around with 2.01 last week a little bit. I ran into problems
> with it because of the use of newer posix definitions. Since then I've
> gotten sidetracked on writing some new posix headers (partly to learn posix
> stuff).
> Not being a gcc expert, I'm wondering how the implemented 64-bit code
> affects the ability to compile it with gcc 2.95.
>
> > I have some assembler sources that use SSE4 symbols and nasm won't
> > deal with them.
> >
> > Anyone know of any gotchas in using a later nasm version?
> >
>
> At this point, I only know of the need to define some of the newer posix
> constants and macros. I particularly ran into the need for the fprintf()
> and fscanf() macros in inttypes.h. Also UINT_64() in stdint.h. I'm sure
> there are plenty of other gotchas.
--
Cheers
David
Other related posts:
