Where is the assembler's source code located? [SOLVED]

General FreeBASIC programming questions.
srvaldez
Posts: 2950
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 21:54

Re: Where is the assembler's source code located? [SOLVED]

Post by srvaldez »

found an old backup VM with Windows 2000 and it works ok, I used Windows Binaries (mingw-w64 gcc 5.2.0) http://downloads.sourceforge.net/fbc/Fr ... p?download to test
also fbide-4.6 from https://sourceforge.net/projects/fbide/ ... p/download works
gcc-5.2 works also by using #cmdline, for example #cmdline "-gen gcc -O 2"
xX_Pokeman2003_Xx
Posts: 20
Joined: Mar 11, 2022 21:10

Re: Where is the assembler's source code located? [SOLVED]

Post by xX_Pokeman2003_Xx »

Since this topic seems to refuse to die despite my hopes it would, I'll rejoin the fray temporarily to answer a few things that my impulsive mind deemed fit.
caseih wrote: May 12, 2022 2:29 Just goes to show, be careful about pointing blame and ranting about developers (who release their work for free by the way) not wanting to support an old, unsupported, and obsolete OS.

At this point in time, it's not reasonable to expect any recent release of any software to run on Windows 2000. If it does it's entirely coincidental, because *no* developers are targeting Windows 2000. Why would they? In fact there's no legal way for any developer to get his hands on Windows 2000 even if he wanted to support that OS, besides all the other reasons.

Also bear in mind the FB developers are not targeting Windows 2000 either, or any version of Windows prior to Windows 8.1. It's not that FB needs or wants to target the latest and greatest. Rather it's that all the tools along the way move with the times, and carry FB and other projects with them. For example, the MS C Runtime, which FB requires.
I will open up with an apology about my rant(and probably immediately invalidate my apology by ranting once again.) It was childish, however I think any outside observer could understand if they saw the 4 editions available. Listed right here, we have, in order, FreeBSD, Windows, and Linux. Fairly typical, except, what's this? DOS is an edition that they're clearly targeting. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume they are attempting to also target 32 bit Windows with this, because every single 32 bit version of Windows can emulate(or, in the case of the 16/32 9x kernel, natively utilize) DOS programs.
Now, in the hypothetical event that the people compiling the binaries for download didn't create a package that could work natively with Windows 2000, why not? Why would they lure you in with the promise of DOS support(an OS family, mind you, that is getting difficult to maintain natively because of the outright erasure of legacy BIOS support from UEFIs, a move I'll never understand but it's tangential here,) only to shoot you in the balls over not natively supporting a Windows version that supports the DOS version? What sense does that make?
As for tools, most of them do similar BS. Most can easily support even the earliest iterations of Win32(if they're even dependent on that), but don't either through an artificial cap(Firefox Quantum runs just fine on Windows XP but doesn't through a cap,) or do so because they're lazy(Notepad++ doesn't work on Windows XP or earlier anymore because of exactly one text box that shows up rarely using a thing that exists only in Vista+. Literally one text box.)
To say that this all ticks me off, and has been bothering me for ages, is an understatement. It's been a thing that's bothered me ever since I got into programming. My rant today and May 10th were simply the result of hitting boiling point, because I was that close.
I won't touch the rest because I am not qualified to discuss vectored exception handling, and likewise there's nothing to discuss on the fact I have at least found a version that works for me.


dodicat wrote: May 12, 2022 11:25 It is nice to have backward compatibility.
Win XP is still used for some POS systems offline.
(I know one newsagent who uses it, and he knows others)
It is a really stable operating system.
Even DOS is still used for this, but of course freebasic has a DOS compiler anyway.
I never liked Win 2000 since I got the virut virus.
It even infected my pen drive which was stuck in at the time of infection.
I re installed win 2000, and stupidly stuck the pen drive back in.
Sucks you got the Virut virus. Probably would've helped to have had the ethernet unplugged. Heard rumors that it refuses to infect machines that aren't connected to the internet.
Backwards compatibility is great. It allows me to utilize outdated hardware for new tasks and not have my hardware rot. I still occasionally plug the Tandy in to see just how much I can squeeze out of it. Machines not plugged into the internet and I can specialize into certain tasks are also great. Since my family drags their feet when it comes to upgrades, I really only have low end hardware from the early 2000s and before to work with. We're not a particularly rich family, so I end up using whatever I've got. Using something like Windows 10 would absolutely destroy the hardware I work with, especially with the read and writes it does to hard drives.
I like using Windows 2000 because it's stable, it's incredibly flexible, and has many QoL features you can't find in modern versions of Windows(even professional editions.) I believe Windows 2000 to perhaps be the best of the Windows operating systems, although personally, Vista with good drivers and both service packs is a very close second.
dodicat wrote: May 12, 2022 11:25 I have a Windows 2000 Professional book, 734 pages with a cd included.
Anybody want it?
How much's the bid and what's the shipping to California? Might take my chance. Although, I'd rather argue that preserving it by scanning it in and ripping the disc to put on some FTP server would be for the best.


srvaldez wrote: May 12, 2022 14:48 found an old backup VM with Windows 2000 and it works ok, I used Windows Binaries (mingw-w64 gcc 5.2.0) http://downloads.sourceforge.net/fbc/Fr ... p?download to test
also fbide-4.6 from https://sourceforge.net/projects/fbide/ ... p/download works
gcc-5.2 works also by using #cmdline, for example #cmdline "-gen gcc -O 2"
Okay, I'll add that to the list of working versions to keep in mind. I suspect it might be the winlibs version provided by the "Download Latest Version" button that doesn't work with older versions of Windows, but I don't quite have the time to test it.
caseih
Posts: 1969
Joined: Feb 26, 2007 5:32

Re: Where is the assembler's source code located? [SOLVED]

Post by caseih »

xX_Pokeman2003_Xx wrote: May 16, 2022 8:21Fairly typical, except, what's this? DOS is an edition that they're clearly targeting. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume they are attempting to also target 32 bit Windows with this, because every single 32 bit version of Windows can emulate(or, in the case of the 16/32 9x kernel, natively utilize) DOS programs.
Your definition of "reasonable" is unique. Why would you think DOS and Windows are in any way related? DOS is not Windows at all. It's not even an ancestor, API-wise.
Now, in the hypothetical event that the people compiling the binaries for download didn't create a package that could work natively with Windows 2000, why not? Why would they lure you in with the promise of DOS support(an OS family, mind you, that is getting difficult to maintain natively because of the outright erasure of legacy BIOS support from UEFIs, a move I'll never understand but it's tangential here,) only to shoot you in the balls over not natively supporting a Windows version that supports the DOS version? What sense does that make?
DOS is not Windows, even if it is 32-bit. Furthermore DOS has been static as a target for many many years now, with no modern descendant other than FreeDOS. It's kind of a special case: it's currently used in embedded systems and other legacy (and non-networked) applications. So there are legitimate use cases for DOS, and the FB devs have chosen to continue targeting it. And like I said, it's much easier to do this because DOS is not a moving target anymore, and a group of enthusiasts have maintained ports of fairly current GNU tools for it.

In the Windows world, things are not so easy. Windows has changed a lot over the years such that in many ways Windows 2000 is a different platform than modern, unicode Win32. So to continue to support Windows 2000 while supporting the most recent versions of windows means maintaining yet another platform. It's true that Windows itself maintains a high degree of backwards compatibility to run old software, but that's no legitimate reason to target Windows 2000 as some kind of lowest common denominator (why not Windows NT 4?). Plus there are modern features that many applications built using these toolchains require, such as unicode support, wide APIs, performance, etc.

All developers have limited time and resources, especially in free software. It's not reasonable to expect them to support your favorite obsolete platform just because. I'm sorry, but your expectations and your anger are not only unwarranted, but unreasonable.
As for tools, most of them do similar BS. Most can easily support even the earliest iterations of Win32(if they're even dependent on that), but don't either through an artificial cap(Firefox Quantum runs just fine on Windows XP but doesn't through a cap,) or do so because they're lazy(Notepad++ doesn't work on Windows XP or earlier anymore because of exactly one text box that shows up rarely using a thing that exists only in Vista+. Literally one text box.)
Great! If it's so easy, please feel free to do it. Clearly it's not as easy as you suggest.
To say that this all ticks me off, and has been bothering me for ages, is an understatement. It's been a thing that's bothered me ever since I got into programming. My rant today and May 10th were simply the result of hitting boiling point, because I was that close.
You are free to use whatever platform you'd like, and to develop software for whatever platform you'd like. And you're free to choose what angers you. But to have expectations, even demands, of others based on your unique view is unreasonable. In other words, your infuriation over the lack of Windows 2000 support by modern compilers and toolchains is patently unreasonable, and no amount of ranting will change that.
adeyblue
Posts: 171
Joined: Nov 07, 2019 20:08

Re: Where is the assembler's source code located? [SOLVED]

Post by adeyblue »

I often wonder how difficult it would be to set up a 'compile it how you like' service. I mean, at this point, several people build and provide Windows downloads of things like GCC/Binutils/FFMPEG/OpenSSL/etc - so it would seem that the barrier to entry to doing it yourself isn't as high as it previously might have been. So if you could set up a system to successfully build those things 100% feature complete, then it should be easy to just lop off a few config options or change the CFLAGS and build a version that only contains features x, y and z or that enables AVX2 instructions etc.

The only problem is that the cloud computing costs of such a service would skyrocket even if it was only minimally popular, and I'm not sure people would bother if they had to contribute to them.
Post Reply