Will there be x64 version of MASM package in the future ?

[madhur_ahuja]

Will there be x64 version of MASM package in the future ?

[hutch--]

All things are possible but there is no real hurry, the demand for 64 bit is miniscule and much of the existing tools are crap.

[madhur_ahuja]

All things are possible but there is no real hurry, the demand for 64 bit is miniscule and much of the existing tools are crap.

Sorry, but I am returning to assembly after gap of almost 8 years. What are you referring to existing tools here ? Peers of MASM ?

[hutch--]

Well,

Given that your question addressed 64 bit assembly, the context is in fact 64 bit assembly and the point I made is the tools for 64 bit assembly are crappy along side the stuff available for 32 bit and the much older 16 bit. This will change over time but it won't happen in a hurry.

[dedndave]

i'd be much happier to see the next revision of masm32  :bg

[madhur_ahuja]

Well,

Given that your question addressed 64 bit assembly, the context is in fact 64 bit assembly and the point I made is the tools for 64 bit assembly are crappy along side the stuff available for 32 bit and the much older 16 bit. This will change over time but it won't happen in a hurry.

Thanks I got that. But I believe most of the tools in MASM are made by Microsoft, basically ml64.exe and link.exe. And Microsoft is shipping these tools in VS 2010 RTM. You mean to say that programs which are made out of Visual Studio 2010 x64 tools are made out of crappier compiler and linker?

[dedndave]

lol
perhaps you have confused MASM with the masm32 project   :bg
MASM comes from MS, as well as their linkers
the masm32 project (the subject of this subforum) utilizes MS MASM, but includes much more
Hutch, and several others, have put endless hours of work into it   :U
in a way, we all have an opportunity to contribute a little bit when we run test algos and by our discussions in the forum
they sometimes provide Hutch with the information he needs to decide how to improve the package

[madhur_ahuja]

Thanks. Got that  :U

[ramguru]

ML64.EXE does not support pseudo high level notation and may not in the future (invoke,.if,.while,.repeat..)
I would go with fasm, if I were to code something in 64bit

[madhur_ahuja]

ML64.EXE does not support pseudo high level notation and may not in the future (invoke,.if,.while,.repeat..)
I would go with fasm, if I were to code something in 64bit

Hmmm . That's strange ! I agree, 64 bit tools are indeed crappier currently  :'(

[sinsi]

Bullshit. Raw ASM, use ml64.

[hutch--]

Over time they will get better but there are cost factors involved as well, Microsoft like any other company must be able to justify the cost of further development of a tool like MASM. ML64 will do the job for what they currently need which is short of what a fully developed assembler can do. Linkers are no big deal as C/C++ use the same linker but you will also need thinngs like resource compilers, resource editors and the like and at the moment the range is not that good. It is similar to the change from 16 bit Windows to 32 bit, not much of the old stuff worked in 32 bit and it took years before much was worth having.

[madhur_ahuja]

Bullshit. Raw ASM, use ml64.

Can you explain more ? Do you mean Raw ASM uses ml64 and supports advanced constructs ....?

[sinsi]

When I code I don't use invoke, don't use macros, don't even use proc. So for me, ml64 is great.


Moderator, can we split this into a new topic? It doesn't belong here.

[BogdanOntanu]

I have done the split ;)

One can also use JWASM or my SOL_ASM since both have invoke and macros and runtime conditionals (.if .else .elseif .endif) for x64

IMHO using simple "raw" ASM without "invoke" and ".if" is no longer an option for large ASM applications.