Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.msdos.programmer > #143 > unrolled thread

Best DOS assembler?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.msdos.programmer

Contents

  Best DOS assembler? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-15 15:37 +0200
    Re: Best DOS assembler? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-19 12:49 +0200
      Re: Best DOS assembler? Jim Leonard <mobygamer@gmail.com> - 2011-08-19 07:40 -0700
      Re: Best DOS assembler? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-19 19:14 -0400
        Re: Best DOS assembler? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-21 01:03 +0200
        Re: Best DOS assembler? ak621@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) - 2011-08-30 13:27 +0000
          Re: Best DOS assembler? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201108.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-08-31 05:25 +0200
            Re: Best DOS assembler? ak621@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) - 2011-09-04 13:00 +0000
        Re: Best DOS assembler? James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-09-03 13:09 -0700
          Re: Best DOS assembler? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-04 06:44 -0400
            Re: Best DOS assembler? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201109.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-09-05 02:44 +0200
    Re: Best DOS assembler? Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2011-08-24 01:06 -0700
      Re: Best DOS assembler? monahanz <monahan@vitasoft.org> - 2011-09-01 00:20 -0700
        Re: Best DOS assembler? Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-09-01 12:24 -0400
          Re: Best DOS assembler? monahanz <monahan@vitasoft.org> - 2011-09-01 10:41 -0700
            Re: Best DOS assembler? Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-09-01 14:40 -0400
              Re: Best DOS assembler? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201109.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-09-02 07:11 +0200
                Re: Best DOS assembler? Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-09-02 11:09 -0400
                  Re: Best DOS assembler? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201109.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-09-05 02:06 +0200
                    Re: Best DOS assembler? Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-09-05 14:57 -0400
                      Re: Best DOS assembler? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201109.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-09-06 03:01 +0200
                        Re: Best DOS assembler? Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-09-06 10:28 -0400
                          Re: Best DOS assembler? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-09-08 06:37 +0200
                            Re: Best DOS assembler? Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-09-09 11:47 -0400
                              Re: Best DOS assembler? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201109.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-09-10 23:19 +0200
                                Re: Best DOS assembler? Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-09-10 20:09 -0400
                                  Re: Best DOS assembler? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-09-11 10:48 +0200
                                    Re: Best DOS assembler? Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-09-11 12:18 -0400
                                      Re: Best DOS assembler? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201109.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-09-12 01:31 +0200
                                        Re: Best DOS assembler? Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-09-12 11:30 -0400
              Re: Best DOS assembler? ak621@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) - 2011-09-04 13:02 +0000
                Re: Best DOS assembler? Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-09-04 10:01 -0400
          Re: Best DOS assembler? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-09-01 22:46 +0200
        Re: Best DOS assembler? Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2011-09-01 16:07 -0700
          Re: Best DOS assembler? monahanz <monahan@vitasoft.org> - 2011-09-01 21:56 -0700
            Re: Best DOS assembler? Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2011-09-02 16:19 -0700
            Re: Best DOS assembler? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-02 20:23 -0400
            Re: Best DOS assembler? "s_dubrovich@yahoo.com" <s_dubrovich@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-03 07:08 -0700
              Re: Best DOS assembler? monahanz <monahan@vitasoft.org> - 2011-09-03 10:12 -0700
                Re: Best DOS assembler? Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2011-09-03 11:42 -0700
                  Re: Best DOS assembler? monahanz <monahan@vitasoft.org> - 2011-09-03 22:21 -0700
                    Re: Best DOS assembler? Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2011-09-04 22:43 -0700
                Re: Best DOS assembler? "s_dubrovich@yahoo.com" <s_dubrovich@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-03 13:11 -0700
                  Re: Best DOS assembler? Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2011-09-04 09:13 -0700
                    Re: Best DOS assembler? "s_dubrovich@yahoo.com" <s_dubrovich@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-05 05:37 -0700
                      Re: Best DOS assembler? ak621@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) - 2011-09-17 10:40 +0000
            Re: Best DOS assembler? ak621@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) - 2011-09-04 13:06 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#143 — Best DOS assembler?

Does anyone want to cast his vote for best DOS assembler? What was your
favorite assembler back in the day (not including modern assemblers that
will run on DOS like NASM/FASM etc.) 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#158

Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:

> Does anyone want to cast his vote for best DOS assembler? What was your
> favorite assembler back in the day (not including modern assemblers that
> will run on DOS like NASM/FASM etc.) 

Was this such a wierd question? How come nobody answered?

I know about MASM and TASM. Anything else good?
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159

On Aug 19, 5:49 am, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> > Does anyone want to cast his vote for best DOS assembler? What was your
> > favorite assembler back in the day (not including modern assemblers that
> > will run on DOS like NASM/FASM etc.)
>
> Was this such a wierd question? How come nobody answered?

It was a bit like asking what someone's favorite food is.  "I like
food!  What's your favorite thing to eat?"  It's incredibly generic
and doesn't seem to have a point, like the kind of question someone
asks when they just want to hear themselves talk.

> I know about MASM and TASM. Anything else good?

For what platform?  For what use and purpose?

If you know about MASM and TASM, check out NASM.

There are many others: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=x86+assemblers

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:b1b9a1ca7ff3d15f40010957093199b3@dizum.com...
> Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone want to cast his vote for best DOS assembler? What was your
> > favorite assembler back in the day (not including modern assemblers that
> > will run on DOS like NASM/FASM etc.)
>
> Was this such a wierd question? How come nobody answered?
>
> I know about MASM and TASM. Anything else good?
> >
>

Usenet volume has fallen over the past few years.  There are hardly any
posts here anymore.  Html based forums seems to be more active.  But, I'm
not sure if even they are "the place" with all the new methods of
communicating today.

I didn't have any problem answering, even though the basic question of ones
favorite assembler comes up all the time on alt.os.development,
alt.lang.asm, comp.lang.asm.x86 etc.  It's just that you excluded me by the
way you phrased the question.  It seems you also asked something similar a
few months ago.  I wasn't programming on x86 PCs "back in the day", so I
didn't use any of the early x86 assemblers, AFAIR ...  I may have used DEBUG
a few times.  It's likely I did, but I really don't recall anymore.
Currently, I like NASM for standalone x86 assembly, but I haven't used it
for 64-bit code, yet.  The developers made some changes to the syntax for
64-bits which I suspect I won't be happy with.  YASM and FASM use, or did
use, the same syntax.  I also use inline assembly in C which I believe is
GNU's GAS assembler for GCC (with DJGPP) and WASM assembler for
OpenWatcom's C compiler.  For newer OpenWatcom, I think WASM has
been replaced by JWASM.

There are lots of x86 assemblers:

MASM, TASM, NBASM, WASM, JWASM,
NASM, FASM, YASM,
GAS,
A86, POASM, GOASM, ROSASM, HLA
etc

MASM syntax on the first line, NASM syntax on the second line, GAS
syntax on the third, and various on the fourth.  HLA is there because I'm
being polite.  It's not an "assembler" IMO.  It's a HLL.  It should be easy
to locate all of them, but let me know, if not.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161

Thank you

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170

Rod Pemberton (do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm) wrote:
> Usenet volume has fallen over the past few years.  There are hardly any
> posts here anymore.  Html based forums seems to be more active.  But, I'm
> not sure if even they are "the place" with all the new methods of
> communicating today.
(Snip)

> Rod Pemberton

***   Unfortunately, they have severely fragmented the audience of
posters. I liked it better when we were all on just a few Usenet groups.
Then there is the issue of posting "news" on those forums with a
browser. GRRRRR!

   Plus, html has not improved the posting procedures and methods of
anyone either.  (-:

-- 
         Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#171

Hey Richard what's the big idea of having your site with all those awesome
covers and not posting the books!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#195

Fritz Wuehler (fritz@spamexpire-201108.rodent.frell.theremailer.net) wrote:
> Hey Richard what's the big idea of having your site with all those awesome
> covers and not posting the books!

***   Well, Fritz:

* I don't own the copyrights.

* The amount of work to scan every page of just the 100+ books in my DOS
   library alone is impossible given how busy my lifestyle is.

* I would have to arrange for a lot more webspace which I cannot afford.

* Most of the books are available to purchase (at least I see them in my
   travels), and their cost is usually low. 

* Some may be available for loan from major libraries, especially
   university ones.

* It's possible that some of the books are already on line somewhere.


   Otherwise, I feel that it would be nice if these older publications
were available on line or for e-readers.

-- 
         Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#189

On Aug 20, 12:14 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm>
wrote:

...

> There are lots of x86 assemblers:
>
> MASM, TASM, NBASM, WASM, JWASM,
> NASM, FASM, YASM,
> GAS,
> A86, POASM, GOASM, ROSASM, HLA
> etc

I think the one I used to use was called Chasm. Perhaps it's notable
if only for not being on Rod's list!

James

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194

"James Harris" <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:12a9f689-f146-4cdd-a833-6a683808f5a7@33g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 20, 12:14 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm>
> wrote:
> > MASM, TASM, NBASM, WASM, JWASM,
> > NASM, FASM, YASM,
> > GAS,
> > A86, POASM, GOASM, ROSASM, HLA
>
> I think the one I used to use was called Chasm. Perhaps
> it's notable if only for not being on Rod's list!
>

I just have this annoying feeling that I've forgotten some ...  GGs advanced
search is down, so we can't search c.l.a.x. or a.l.a for more...

Let me search for more.  Ok, I never heard of these, but found via Yahoo:

LZASM
SOLASM
GASM
XASM

Wikipedia also lists some others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_assemblers

New page on A.O.D. ... ?   :-)


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#207

"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote:

> "James Harris" <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:12a9f689-f146-4cdd-a833-6a683808f5a7@33g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 20, 12:14 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm>
> > wrote:
> > > MASM, TASM, NBASM, WASM, JWASM,
> > > NASM, FASM, YASM,
> > > GAS,
> > > A86, POASM, GOASM, ROSASM, HLA
> >
> > I think the one I used to use was called Chasm. Perhaps
> > it's notable if only for not being on Rod's list!
> >
> 
> I just have this annoying feeling that I've forgotten some ...  GGs advanced
> search is down, so we can't search c.l.a.x. or a.l.a for more...
> 
> Let me search for more.  Ok, I never heard of these, but found via Yahoo:
> 
> LZASM
> SOLASM
> GASM
> XASM
> 
> Wikipedia also lists some others:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_assemblers
> 
> New page on A.O.D. ... ?   :-)
> 
> 
> Rod Pemberton
> 
> 
Was trying to remember if I missed anything. Those wikipedia pages tend not
to be very useful since they are just tables of facts. Was looking for
opinions from people who used old assemblers when they were new.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166

Hi,

On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> Does anyone want to cast his vote for best DOS assembler? What was your
> favorite assembler back in the day (not including modern assemblers that
> will run on DOS like NASM/FASM etc.)

Well, keep in mind that "modern" is an overloaded word, esp. regarding
software. Also, NASM has existed since a long time (early '90s). FASM
similarly has existed since 1999. Most people (used to) love MASM 5
(1987?) or 6 (1992?) the most or even TASM 4 (?) or 5.3 (2000). But
A86/A386 4.05 (2000) and Optasm (?) had a fair amount of users too.
(Debug doesn't count, obviously, not even for non-MS DOSes that
supported more than 8086.)

Most favorites:   NASM, FASM
Least favorites:  GAS (AT&T), TASM (Ideal), MASM (v6)

Basically I started learning x86 assembly around 1996 (80xxx, hi Ed!),
and I used Arrowsoft Assembler 2.00c (aka, MASM 4) and NASM 0.94
(macros!). Later I (also) used A86, FASM, YASM, and more or less
bounced around at random using others for fun (Octasm, whee!).

The golden standard in olden times always seemed to be MASM
"compatible", but MASM-only (or TASM-only) code also existed in tons
of places, which was (and still is) very annoying. Truly, these days
(even for "old" DOS stuff, heh) I prefer NASM or FASM. But JWasm has a
lot going for it, esp. for legacy code. Too bad I never learned all
that fancy HLL crap (structs!) that various people loved to (over)use.

BTW, I never messed much with NoMySo, probably should've tried it, but
usually things like that never helped with translating legacy code. I
still have a few things I want to convert one of these days.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#172

On Aug 24, 1:06 am, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Aug 15, 9:37 pm, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Does anyone want to cast his vote for best DOS assembler? What was your
> > favorite assembler back in the day (not including modern assemblers that
> > will run on DOS like NASM/FASM etc.)
>
> Well, keep in mind that "modern" is an overloaded word, esp. regarding
> software. Also, NASM has existed since a long time (early '90s). FASM
> similarly has existed since 1999. Most people (used to) love MASM 5
> (1987?) or 6 (1992?) the most or even TASM 4 (?) or 5.3 (2000). But
> A86/A386 4.05 (2000) and Optasm (?) had a fair amount of users too.
> (Debug doesn't count, obviously, not even for non-MS DOSes that
> supported more than 8086.)
>
> Most favorites:   NASM, FASM
> Least favorites:  GAS (AT&T), TASM (Ideal), MASM (v6)
>
> Basically I started learning x86 assembly around 1996 (80xxx, hi Ed!),
> and I used Arrowsoft Assembler 2.00c (aka, MASM 4) and NASM 0.94
> (macros!). Later I (also) used A86, FASM, YASM, and more or less
> bounced around at random using others for fun (Octasm, whee!).
>
> The golden standard in olden times always seemed to be MASM
> "compatible", but MASM-only (or TASM-only) code also existed in tons
> of places, which was (and still is) very annoying. Truly, these days
> (even for "old" DOS stuff, heh) I prefer NASM or FASM. But JWasm has a
> lot going for it, esp. for legacy code. Too bad I never learned all
> that fancy HLL crap (structs!) that various people loved to (over)use.
>
> BTW, I never messed much with NoMySo, probably should've tried it, but
> usually things like that never helped with translating legacy code. I
> still have a few things I want to convert one of these days.

A somewhat related question.
What is the best way to use an 8086 Assembler on Windows 7 (64Bit).
MASM 5.0 requires a XP virtual box.   is there a simple way to
assemble small amounts of code directly in a Windows 7 window.

I just cannot seem to get Visual Studio (8) to run with MASM either

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#173

monahanz  <monahan@vitasoft.org> wrote:
>What is the best way to use an 8086 Assembler on Windows 7 (64Bit).
>MASM 5.0 requires a XP virtual box.   is there a simple way to
>assemble small amounts of code directly in a Windows 7 window.
>
>I just cannot seem to get Visual Studio (8) to run with MASM either

Finding a 32-bit version of MASM isn't hard.  It's included (as ml.exe)
with Visual Studio C++ Express and number of freely available SDKs
and DDKs.  The tricky part is finding a 32-bit version of LINK that can
produce MS-DOS executables.  I use one hidden in the Windows XP DDK,
but you might be able to find it elsewhere.

					Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //	  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174

On Sep 1, 9:24 am, Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> monahanz  <mona...@vitasoft.org> wrote:
> >What is the best way to use an 8086 Assembler on Windows 7 (64Bit).
> >MASM 5.0 requires a XP virtual box.   is there a simple way to
> >assemble small amounts of code directly in a Windows 7 window.
>
> >I just cannot seem to get Visual Studio (8) to run with MASM either
>
> Finding a 32-bit version of MASM isn't hard.  It's included (as ml.exe)
> with Visual Studio C++ Express and number of freely available SDKs
> and DDKs.  The tricky part is finding a 32-bit version of LINK that can
> produce MS-DOS executables.  I use one hidden in the Windows XP DDK,
> but you might be able to find it elsewhere.
>
>                                         Ross Ridge
>
> --
>  l/  //   Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
> [oo][oo]  rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
> -()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
>  db  //  

Thanks Ross, Before I jump into this perhaps you could give me some
pointers.
Is there a "step by step" writeup somewhere that describes how to
configure Visual Studio 2008 to run
ml.exe.  When I last looked all I could find was (free) downloads/
instructions to set it up with an ealier version of VS (the free
student version).   The VS 2008 help itself is not very clear to me.

I will look for Link as well. Question, will it work with W7 (64bit).
Do I have to use a CMD.exe box or can it also sit within VS2008.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175

monahanz  <monahan@vitasoft.org> wrote:
>Thanks Ross, Before I jump into this perhaps you could give me some
>pointers.
>Is there a "step by step" writeup somewhere that describes how to
>configure Visual Studio 2008 to run ml.exe.

Sorry, I don't use the Visual Studio IDE.  I just make occational use
of the command line utilities (like ml.exe) included with the free
Express versions.

>I will look for Link as well. Question, will it work with W7 (64bit).
>Do I have to use a CMD.exe box or can it also sit within VS2008.

Most versions of Microsoft's linker you can find today aren't able to
create MS-DOS executables, and most of the old versions of link than
can are 16-bit applications that won't work 64-bit versions of Windows.
One of the versions of link (there a number of them) included in the
Windows XP DDK is a 32-bit application that can create MS-DOS executables
on 64-bit Windows.  You should be able to use it somehow with Visual
Studio as an external program, but I'm not sure that feature is included
in the free Express version.

					Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //	  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180

> monahanz  <monahan@vitasoft.org> wrote:
> >Thanks Ross, Before I jump into this perhaps you could give me some
> >pointers.
> >Is there a "step by step" writeup somewhere that describes how to
> >configure Visual Studio 2008 to run ml.exe.

Yes, have a look on Kip Irvine's pages. I think it's kipirvine.com but if
not you should be able to find it with a quick websearch. Lots of good tools
on that site. Hard to navigate but lots of good stuff.

> >I will look for Link as well. Question, will it work with W7 (64bit).
> >Do I have to use a CMD.exe box or can it also sit within VS2008.
> 
> Most versions of Microsoft's linker you can find today aren't able to
> create MS-DOS executables, and most of the old versions of link than
> can are 16-bit applications that won't work 64-bit versions of Windows.
> One of the versions of link (there a number of them) included in the
> Windows XP DDK is a 32-bit application that can create MS-DOS executables
> on 64-bit Windows.  You should be able to use it somehow with Visual
> Studio as an external program, but I'm not sure that feature is included
> in the free Express version.

You should get a 32/64 bit linker with VS and the other ones are available
on downloads.microsoft.com. Also see japheth.de for some links to linkers

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#181

Fritz Wuehler writes:
>You should get a 32/64 bit linker with VS...

The linker included with Visual Studio isn't capable of creating MS-DOS
executables.

					Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //	  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#206

Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

> Fritz Wuehler writes:
> >You should get a 32/64 bit linker with VS...
> 
> The linker included with Visual Studio isn't capable of creating MS-DOS
> executables.
> 
> 					Ross Ridge

Yes, I know I said 32/64 bit. And I said you could find LNK563.EXE on
downloads.microsoft.com. That should work on DOS, or if not check
japheth.de.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211

Fritz Wuehler writes:
>You should get a 32/64 bit linker with VS...
 
Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> The linker included with Visual Studio isn't capable of creating MS-DOS
> executables.

Fritz Wuehler writes:
>Yes, I know I said 32/64 bit.

A linker that can't produce MS-DOS executables is useless to the original
poster.

					Ross Ridge



-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //	  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.msdos.programmer

csiph-web