anonymous coward wrote:
> If you have an opinion on SF #767378, then I'd like to hear it.
> Also check out http://www.masmforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1965.
I'm not sure what this is going to do for us that Mike's multisection
support doesn't already do... "backing up", maybe, and I think we could
do that by simply not making "overlapping sections" an error (maybe that
We hashed this over, and "decided" that multiple "org"s were ultimately
a Bad Idea. Perhaps we didn't have the agreement I thought we had - I
know *some* people still wanted multiple "org"s... The question can be
For the same reason that I reached the conclusion that multiple "org"s
were a Bad Idea, my first reaction is that multiple parameters to "org"
are a Bad Idea. What does "org" mean if there's more than one of them?
The boot sector is a good example. The "other assemblers" use "multiple
orgs" such that you can do:
org 1FEh ; (or 7DFEh)
db 55, 0AAh
... padding the code to the stated value... like "times"...
But you might also want to have a hunk of code that's going to be moved
to a new offset before it's executed. This wants a different "virtual
org" than the rest of the code (Nasm's "incbin" feature can be used to
do this, but it's a PITA). Mike's code (which we *did* discuss and
specify and practically "write the manual first" for) handles both of
these situations. We did "leave out" the ability to "back up" - this may
have been a mistake - I guess Forth programmers like to be able to do
it, and you must have something in mind.
Maybe you intend something more - you indicate that this will be useable
in the "object" formats as well as "bin". It seems to me that this is
going to require interaction with the linker that I don't know how to do
(it's probably possible...). How's that going to work?