From: Keith K. <sp...@dy...> - 2007-05-25 12:33:07
|
> H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > ... >> What version number did you use? > > 0.99.00 (I'm afraid if that's not okay... too late. Sorry.) > > That reminds me, I should bump that version number, right? > >> Anyway, this is clearly going to be more of a "development snapshot" >> than anything else... the 64-bit code is still a bit raw (see my >> discussion of bitmaps previously), but probably useful for some number >> of people. > > That was my thinking. We don't seem to be getting much (any) feedback > from the CVS version, so I figured to push it onto a larger "test suite" > :) > >> Unfortunately, Keith is still offline, and I've been too busy at my >> primary job function to do something major at this point. Well, I won't be back until probably July... and then I have much work to do in getting a stable job. I'm actually an *amateur* programmer (as if anyone hasn't noticed :P) and I need to get a *stable* job so I can finish (more like start) my college degree and get that little piece of paper that *says* I am capable of doing the things I *can* do. So that being said, I actually never intended to keep working on NASM as "much" as I did, as there are many more C programmers who can run circles around my efforts... and in half the time. I was only hoping to jump-start some interest in NASM and get it going again. Frank knows of my interest to actually make a nice, clean assembler in x86 Assembly Language that will be compatible with NASM instead of trying to follow the generic "portability" route and the nightmare-ish bloat that follows. Hell, even Mac has moved to the x86... why jerk ourselves around thinking we can best the minority commercial architectures ;) Anyhow, if needed, I couldn't imagine being able to work on NASM again until later this year, October... perhaps September. Well, keep cracking on NASM... good work so far :) |