From: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zy...> - 2007-04-28 04:38:07
Frank Kotler wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Frank Kotler wrote:
>>>>> I assume "nasm16" is history... as we planned...
>>>> Hell yes.
>>> Some of us view it with regret. :)
>> How come? It was a nightmare to maintain, and never worked well.
>> It's questionable if anyone ever used it.
> Sorry for the "untimely" reply, but... You'll recall that we agreed to
> mercilessly interrogate anyone downloading it as to *why*... I got an
> answer to that from one guy. He told me that they were using Nasm16 in
> class, because there were 286s in the computer lab(!). I don't know if
> he was going to school in Bangladesh, or what, but that was his story...
> No, I am *not* suggesting this as a reason to maintain Nasm16, but many
> people *have* used it, and a few apparently still do. I don't think they
> need the 64-bit stuff... :)
Heh. Well, at least it's good someone got some use of it.
However, for NASM 2.0 (if we call it that?), it's time to let it die.