Re: [Nasm-devel] 0.98.39 DOS source and Makefile

[H. P. A. <hp...@zy...>]

John Coffman wrote:
> The move to 64-bit support is really not that hard.  A well thought out 
> type definition file, with appropriate conditionals to define the obvious:
> 
>   u8, s8                bytes & chars
>   u16, s16      16-bit ints
>   u32, s32      32-bit ints
>   u64, s64      64-bit ints     ; support varies for 'long long'
> 
> Similar defs for floats.  Some environments just won't be able to 
> support all types, unless a compatibility library is built.  Ugh!!

That's true for C89.  For C99, 64-bit types are required and standard 
defines are in <inttypes.h>.

> Are you aware that the DOS 16-bit compiler does not support any SSE 
> instructions?  This was necessary to fit the instruction table into a 
> 64k segment of its own.

Depends on which version of the compiler.

> One approach I would suggest:  for compilers that don't support 'long 
> long', define 's64' to be the same as 's32'.  This will impose some 
> limitations on the resulting assembler, but "sizeof(u64)>sizeof(u32)" 
> conditionals can point out limitations if any are actually tickled.

I suggest lets stop pretending to support ancient systems *as compile 
hosts*.  It's just a big waste of time.

	-hpa