Re: NASM 64-bit: are we there yet (once more, with feeling...)

Charles Crayne wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:59:42 -0700
> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpazytor.com> wrote:
> 
>> Sure, but what did the version script and the
associated stuff do with
>> it afterwards?
> 
> The things I knew to check looked OK. For example:
> 
> [chuckthor nasm-2.0RC1]$ ./nasm -v
> NASM version 2.0RC1 compiled on Sep 20 2007
> 
> [chuckthor nasm-2.0RC1]$ ll /var/tmp
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 chuck chuck 653756 2007-09-20 21:20
nasm-2.0RC1.tar.bz2
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 chuck chuck 792824 2007-09-20 21:20
nasm-2.0RC1.tar.gz
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 chuck chuck 512051 2007-09-20 21:21
nasm-2.0RC1-xdoc.tar.bz2
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 chuck chuck 639044 2007-09-20 21:21
nasm-2.0RC1-xdoc.tar.gz
> -rw-r--r-- 1 chuck chuck 648699 2007-09-20 21:21
nasm-2.0RC1-xdoc.zip
> -rw-r--r-- 1 chuck chuck 894875 2007-09-20 21:20
nasm-2.0RC1.zip
> 
> What else should I be checking?
> 

Look at the __NASM_*__ macros in macros.c.

	-hpa

------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Nasm-devel mailing list
Nasm-devellists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nasm-devel