Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!alberta!aunro!ersys!bking
From: ersys!bking@nro.cs.athabascau.ca (Barry King)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: Microsoft Assembler Complaints
Message-ID: <46e8s1w163w@ersys.uucp>
Date: 25 Nov 90 18:14:02 GMT
References: <11547@j.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Lines: 23

zhou@brazil.psych.purdue.edu (Albert Zhou) writes:

> >Both OPTASM (by SLR Systems) and TASM (v2.0) are at least two or
> >three times as fast as MASM, produce better code, and have more
>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Isn't one-to-one translation from Assembly to machine codes. How come "better
> code?

This is TERRIBLY petty but...now who's not so technical???
 
Assemblers do _not_ always do one to one translations.  References to 
objects which are not well defined in the first pass, f'rinstance, may 
result in sequences of NOPs being produced.  MASM assumes far addresses 
the first time through and goes back and 'fixes' any of those references 
that are actually near and inserts NOPs.  Also segment fixups affect the 
generated code.  Pseudo opcodes may be implemented differently by 
different assemblers, too.
 
Anyway, it's dangerous to cast stones, isn't it...not everyone on this 
net has the same level of technical expertise and part of the point of 
this communication medium is to share information...
 
nuff said