Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 10:51:24 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Marius Bendiksen <Marius.Bendiksen@scancall.no>, David Holland <dholland@cs.toronto.edu> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Producing non-GPLed tools for FreeBSD Message-ID: <4.1.19981020104739.06d73e60@mail.lariat.org> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981020180941.009625b0@mail.scancall.no> References: <4.1.19981020091349.06ac29d0@mail.lariat.org> <3.0.5.32.19981020162222.0091a640@mail.scancall.no> <4.1.19981019150118.06775920@mail.lariat.org> <98Oct19.164437edt.37814-9002@qew.cs.toronto.edu> <4.1.19981019000937.06571220@mail.lariat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 06:09 PM 10/20/98 +0200, Marius Bendiksen wrote: >Oh. So much for that idea. You could probably try talking to the author, >though; I think he'd be willing to issue a berkeley-licensed version. There's multiple authorship. We'd have to see. >Actually, that's where I like NASM. To quote the docs: NASM doesn't ASSUME. >It's pretty clean-cut as far as everything is concerned.. Eliminating the "assumptions" made by the assembler removes some headaches but creates others. For example, do you have to specify SS: explicitly every time you index off of BP (or EBP)? (BP implicitly points into the stack segment, though you can use it as a pointer into anything.) The assembler still has to know the default segment addressed by an index register, or it'll generate extra override bytes. And it needs to catch "double overrides," which aren't allowed. (That is, you can't do a segment override on more than one operand.) Things can get messy. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.19981020104739.06d73e60>