Re: [Nasm-devel] Future ideas: dealing with the ORG problem

[Ed B. <be...@mi...>]

"H. Peter Anvin" <hp...@zy...> wrote:
>Charles Crayne wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:47:16 -0700
>> 
>> As I have always maintained that org is seriously broken, I would,
>> indeed. like to see it fixed. Nor do I see it as particularly difficult.
>> The org directive is already back-end specific, so each module can
>> decide for itself what level of support to provide.
>> 
>
>The real issue with ORG, of course, is that classical assemblers (before 
>stuff like sections were invented) used ORG for two different purposes. 
[...]
>One thing we could do in the short term is to enable this new directive 
>as a forward-only directive for now (providing the padding functionality 
>of ALIGN[B]), and then maybe add backwards movement later.
>
>I have a hard time coming up with a name that isn't likely to step on 
>existing variable names, though.

Maybe REORG?

Ed