No idea about the encoding length, but I wonder why we don't just use NASM everywhere, instead of having two separate assemblers.
On 17 January 2017 at 10:23, Colin Finck <co...@reactos.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > In order to make our ISOs flashable to USB drives and bootable from them > (cf. CORE-12648), I'm currently overhauling our ISO boot sector > "isoboot.S". This adds a lot of code and while I stay in the 2K size > limit when assembling it with GAS, I break it with MASM. > > Disassembling the assembled files shows the difference. > A line like: > > mov word ptr ds:[GetlinsecPtr], ax > > is assembled by GAS to: > > A35B50 mov [0x505b],ax > > while MASM does this: > > 67A35B500000 mov [dword 0x505b],ax > > > Is there any option to enforce the shorter opcode sequence for MASM too? > The code uses a lot of similar MOVs and this seems to be the only reason > why I break the 2K size limit with MASM. > > If there is no such option, what are the advantages of using MASM for > our MSVC build anyway? Can't we just use GAS for both or decide on a > common third-party assembler (NASM) for our assembly files? > > > Cheers, > > Colin > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev@reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
