DOS ain't dead

2007-10-17

Compilations for DOS32, OS/2 (first 99.xx), Win32, Linux

New for 99.05: DOS/4G EXEs

Home page:
http://nasm.sourceforge.net/

Versions:
http://repo.or.cz/w/nasm.git

Downloads:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=6208
ftp://ftp.zytor.com/pub/nasm/releasebuilds/

Nightly snapshots are supposed to be at:
ftp://ftp.zytor.com/pub/nasm/snapshots/
but they're not.

> New for 99.05: DOS/4G EXEs

That's what the world has been waiting for

---
This is a LOGITECH mouse driver, but some software expect here
the following string:*** This is Copyright 1983 Microsoft ***

> > New for 99.05: DOS/4G EXEs
>
> That's what the world has been waiting for

These prebuild .EXEs actually do not work for me (XP or Vista, haven't tried pure DOS yet). I can sorta get NASM to work via "dos4gw nasm -v" or "dos32a nasm -v" but NDISASM refuses to work (and even DOSBox 0.72 doesn't help). So I compiled my own (thrice: DJGPP, OW17a/DOS, OW17a/Win32) and UPX'd 'em:

nasm9905.zip (includes updated COPYING and updated NASMDOC.TXT unlike default build)

Changes in this release:
* fixed FPU bugs? (plus added a few FPU defines, see doc)
* -r removed (use -v instead)
* -E becomes -Z (while both -e and -E are now synonyms)
* -Ox ("eks") now is a synonym for -O999
* OpenWatcom supported directly via makefiles: DOS32, Win32, Linux (DJGPP still needs "./configure ; make") although I still dunno why their pre-builds / snapshots aren't working (bug in OW/Linux??)

---
Know your limits.h

> These prebuild .EXEs actually do not work for me (XP or Vista, haven't
> tried pure DOS yet). I can sorta get NASM to work via "dos4gw nasm -v" or
> "dos32a nasm -v" but NDISASM refuses to work (and even DOSBox 0.72 doesn't
> help). So I compiled my own (thrice: DJGPP, OW17a/DOS, OW17a/Win32) and
> UPX'd 'em:

No OS/2?

> > So I compiled my own (thrice: DJGPP, OW17a/DOS, OW17a/Win32) and
> > UPX'd 'em:
>
> No OS/2?

No. I in fact did download the entire, bloated Win32 OpenWatcom installer (65 MB), so I do have it, but I decided I didn't want to install all targets that I wouldn't need or use (such as OS/2 or Win 3.x or Linux). Why, do you run it? I can compile it for you if you want. Or, you can just use the DOS version (heh).

EDIT: Oops, I think I see what you were misunderstanding. 0.99.04 only had one makefile called MSVC.MAK, whereas 0.99.05 has that plus OPENWCOM.MAK and OWLINUX.MAK. According to MKFILES/README, OPENWCOM.MAK supports targets DOS, OS2, and Win32 (on any of those hosts, tested on host Win32 / OW 1.7), and OWLINUX.MAK supports the same targets tested on Linux / OW 1.6rc2. In fact, if you don't explicitly tell it the target ("wmake -f openwcom.mak"), it says this:

> Open Watcom Make Version 1.7
> Portions Copyright (c) 1988-2002 Sybase, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
> Source code is available under the Sybase Open Watcom Public License.
> See http://www.openwatcom.org/ for details.
> Please build "dos", "win32" or "os2"

So, yes, it supports OS/2, but I don't have OS/2 so I didn't bother to install the OS/2 support on this machine.

> No. I in fact did download the entire, bloated Win32 OpenWatcom installer
> (65 MB), so I do have it, but I decided I didn't want to install all
> targets that I wouldn't need or use (such as OS/2 or Win 3.x or Linux).
> Why, do you run it? I can compile it for you if you want. Or, you can just
> use the DOS version (heh).

I have OS/2 but don't bother with it much. I was mostly just curious why you didn't include it when the NASM group had revived it for this new version.

> So, yes, it supports OS/2,

Exactly - the other reason I was curious about the omission.

> but I don't have OS/2 so I didn't bother to install the OS/2 support on this machine.

Not unreasonable, I must admit - I would not demand that you go and pay multiple $ to be able to test a program that you give away for free. And it is responsible of you not to distribute a program that you have not tested.

Looks like they're going to cross-compile daily for DJGPP / DOS target from now on.