Survey for 64-bit coders

[jj2007]

Some of our members are active in 64-bit land, and I have a few questions to them:
- which assembler and/or package are you using?
  1. Masm64 SDK
  2. UAsm (download)
  3. AsmC
  4. Dual 64- and 32-bit Assembly
  5. PoAsm
  6. Other: ...

- which include files (please provide links to the latest version)?
- which libraries (please provide links to the latest version)?

The reason for this survey is that there are several competing approaches, with pros and cons, and sooner or later we should work on one of them to make it easier for beginners to do their first steps in 64-bit land.

Please just reply to the questions, so that we can get a first impression who is doing what. The collection phase for this thread may take a week, since many members are not always active, so be patient.

To discuss the options, there is a separate thread called 64-bit Assembly: The Best Approach.

I will start the survey:
- No. 4, dual assembly (sometimes also No. 1, Masm64 SDK)
- include files provided with the package
- no specific libraries, i.e. WinAPI only

I admit that 90% of my coding is still in 32-bit land

[HSE]

assembler:
   - UAsm
   - ML64
   - JWasm

include files:
   - ObjAsm Package
   - Masm64 SDK, downloded 10/05/2022, with some macros updates, mostly Invoke (I have to see if Hutch included some modifications in JAN_20)
   - no includes.

libraries:
   - ObjAsm Package.
   - Masm64 SDK.
   - No libraries.

Combined in that order!!

Just in case:

  - UAsm with ObjAsm Package, for big neutral bitness applications (but most working apps still are 32 bits).

  - ML64 with Masm64 SDK, for developments, test and also some console applications.

  - Jwasm, to develop small libraries (esentially for SmplMath) mostly without includes and libraries. So far, some tests are using Masm64 SDK library.

[BugCatcher]

RadAsm 3
ml64
visual studio 2022 binaries

[fearless]

x86

IDE:

• Radasm 2

Binaries:

• Microsoft (R) Macro Assembler Version 6.14.8444 (from MASM32 SDK v11)
• Microsoft (R) Incremental Linker Version 12.00.31101.0 (taken from a Visual Studio installation)
• Microsoft (R) Library Manager Version 12.00.31101.0 (taken from a Visual Studio installation)
• Microsoft (R) Windows (R) Resource Compiler Version 6.3.9600.17336 (taken from a dot net installation)

Support Files:

• MASM32 SDK Includes
• MASM32 SDK Libraries

Debugger:

• x64dbg (https://github.com/x64dbg/x64dbg)

x64

IDE:

• Radasm 2
• UASM-with-RadASM (https://github.com/mrfearless/UASM-with-RadASM)

Binaries:  

• UASM v2.56, Oct 25 2022, Masm-compatible assembler. (https://www.terraspace.co.uk/uasm.html)
• Microsoft (R) Incremental Linker Version 12.00.31101.0 (taken from a Visual Studio installation)
• Microsoft (R) Library Manager Version 12.00.31101.0 (taken from a Visual Studio installation)
• Microsoft (R) Windows (R) Resource Compiler Version 6.3.9600.17336 (taken from a dot net installation)

Support Files:  

• WinInc Includes (https://www.terraspace.co.uk/WinInc210.zip)
• Windows Kit Libraries / Windows SDK Libraries (https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/downloads/sdk-archive)

Debugger:  

• x64dbg (https://github.com/x64dbg/x64dbg)

[Greenhorn]

- AsmC
- AsmC includes
- AsmC libs

[mabdelouahab]

    - Linux operating system
    - UASM
    - No includes.
    - The GNU C Library .

[NoCforMe]

How do you code without any includes? Where do the values for all those symbolic constants come from?

[HSE]

How do you code without any includes? Where do the values for all those symbolic constants come from?

You make your own basic functions, and you write your own includes for that functions. That is true specially for libraries, but simple console programs can requiere very few external things (and can be made internals!).

[NoCforMe]

How do you code without any includes? Where do the values for all those symbolic constants come from?

You make your own basic functions, and you write your own includes for [those] functions.

OK, I just gotta ask: let's say you're doing some printing, and you need to get some printer info using the DeviceCapabilities() function, which you've never used before. So that means you've got to define the DEVMODE structure, which looks like this (in C, of course, which you'll have to translate to an asm STRUCT):

Code Select Expand


typedef struct _devicemode {
  TCHAR dmDeviceName[CCHDEVICENAME];
  WORD  dmSpecVersion;
  WORD  dmDriverVersion;
  WORD  dmSize;
  WORD  dmDriverExtra;
  DWORD dmFields;
  union {
    struct {
      short dmOrientation;
      short dmPaperSize;
      short dmPaperLength;
      short dmPaperWidth;
      short dmScale;
      short dmCopies;
      short dmDefaultSource;
      short dmPrintQuality;
    };
    struct {
      POINTL dmPosition;
      DWORD  dmDisplayOrientation;
      DWORD  dmDisplayFixedOutput;
    };
  };
  short dmColor;
  short dmDuplex;
  short dmYResolution;
  short dmTTOption;
  short dmCollate;
  TCHAR dmFormName[CCHFORMNAME];
  WORD  dmLogPixels;
  DWORD dmBitsPerPel;
  DWORD dmPelsWidth;
  DWORD dmPelsHeight;
  union {
    DWORD dmDisplayFlags;
    DWORD dmNup;
  };
  DWORD dmDisplayFrequency;
#if (WINVER >= 0x0400)
  DWORD dmICMMethod;
  DWORD dmICMIntent;
  DWORD dmMediaType;
  DWORD dmDitherType;
  DWORD dmReserved1;
  DWORD dmReserved2;
#if (WINVER >= 0x0500) || (_WIN32_WINNT >= 0x0400)
  DWORD dmPanningWidth;
  DWORD dmPanningHeight;
#endif
#endif
} DEVMODE, *PDEVMODE, *LPDEVMODE;

So you mean to tell me you're OK typing all that crap in (after translating it)? I couldn't imagine programming for Win32 without include files; that would truly be a pain in the ass. So why no includes?

Yet another reason for me to never, ever want to even go near 64-bit assembler!

[HSE]

    In the end, the trick is: you don't use includes if you don't need them.

Anyway I'm going to tell you a secret, something new: you can copy and paste

[daydreamer]

I only coded few programs made in the first halfbaked 64 bit instruction set: MMX
If i switch to 64 bit,should think best ways are
To switch to the 64 bit assembler used by most forum members to get most info teach/learn things between members
Worst choice would be end up the lonely road of the assembler only i want to use

[jj2007]

How do you code without any includes? Where do the values for all those symbolic constants come from?

You make your own basic functions, and you write your own includes for that functions. That is true specially for libraries, but simple console programs can requiere very few external things (and can be made internals!).

For structures, you may use the Convert C/C++ structure to MASM format tool

So that means you've got to define the DEVMODE structure

And you may some minor editing, depending on the complexity of the structure:

Code Select Expand

DEVMODE STRUCT
dmDeviceName TCHAR CCHDEVICENAME dup(<>)
dmSpecVersion WORD ?
dmDriverVersion WORD ?
dmSize WORD ?
dmDriverExtra WORD ?
dmFields DWORD ?
UNION
???? struct <>
   dmOrientation SWORD ?
   dmPaperSize SWORD ?
   dmPaperLength SWORD ?
   dmPaperWidth SWORD ?
   dmScale SWORD ?
   dmCopies SWORD ?
   dmDefaultSource SWORD ?
   dmPrintQuality SWORD ?
ENDS
???? struct <>
dmPosition POINTL <>
dmDisplayOrientation DWORD ?
dmDisplayFixedOutput DWORD ?
DEVMODE ENDS

.DATA?
align 16
devmode DEVMODE <>

[NoCforMe]

But my question still remains, why would anyone want to not use includes? Isn't that like trying to run a race with heavy weights strapped to your feet? Is this some kind of "purity" thing?

I guess if you only wrote code that rarely uses any Windows GDI stuff it might make sense ...

[zedd151]

    - Linux operating system
    - UASM
    - No includes.
    - The GNU C Library .

  Bold mine, for emphasis

But my question still remains, why would anyone want to not use includes? Isn't that like trying to run a race with heavy weights strapped to your feet? Is this some kind of "purity" thing?

I guess if you only wrote code that rarely uses any Windows GDI stuff it might make sense ...

mabdelouahab is running linux, not Windows. Also GNU C Library, possibly using parts of translated C headers (in source file==no includes)

Maybe it is much different coding for linux than writing code for Windows.     Apples vs Oranges kind of thing.

Perhaps mabdelouahab may come back and correct or verify my assumptions?


.

[HSE]

But my question still remains, why would anyone want to not use includes?

You don't use a walking stick unless you need that.

I guess if you only wrote code that rarely uses any Windows GDI stuff it might make sense ...

Exactly