Best X86 Assembler - FASM vs NASM vs MASM?

So I'm looking to learn x86 assembly and I wanted to know which assembler is the best.

I hear FASM is the fastest assembler, NASM is buggy, and MASM is Macro$hit so it is probably slow and integrated with .net

>>37
>>38
Having one opcode per mnemonic is too simple and obvious. This is x86, clearly we must complicate things some more!

>>41
back to le imagereddits

>>38
Doing it any other way than what is officially specified in the manufacturer's documentation just leads to confusion. It makes much LESS sense to need to append special suffices to mnenomics when different register names would easily make the assembler able to decide.

Maybe it makes sense for those RISCs where the registers don't have any other names and the official documentation also does it like that, but x86 isn't like that, so stop trying to make it look that way.

8a

x86 is shit. Buy a Lemote and join MIPS master race.

>>45
Shut the fuck up, you fucking retarded piece of shit.
RISC was never destined for anything other than Smartphones.

>>46
Freedom-hating faggot.

>>45
Fuck off, fagshit.

>>46
x86 wasn't destined for anything other than calculators and embedded terminals. Secure boot is perfect for x86. That way you'll never be afraid of your calculator giving you a wrong answer — unless it's a Pentium!

>>43
Well yes, the real problem is the manuals. (Am I the only one who distinctly prefers AMD's manuals to Intels?  Yes, I know the mnemonics in both are the same...)

I'm guessing that having 1:1 correspondence between mnemonics and opcodes would make the assembler's job simpler, but I've not written one myself.

>>49
The first x86, the 8086, is 3 (or 4 if you count the 8085 as being separate from the 8080) families ahead of the 4004 and 8008 and quite different from them.

>>50
AMD is too secretive. Try finding the socket AM3 pinout for example. Intel lets you know what every single one of the 2011 pads on the latest CPUs are for. The quality of Intel's manuals (# of typos) went noticeably downhill when they switched to the "new" style of font/logo and probably new people, a few years ago. I still use the ones from P4 days.

I'm guessing that having 1:1 correspondence between mnemonics and opcodes would make the assembler's job simpler, but I've not written one myself.
It would, but at the expense of being able to write Asm easily.

>>51
AMD is too secretive. Try finding the socket AM3 pinout for example. Intel lets you know what every single one of the 2011 pads on the latest CPUs are for.

AMD seriously doesn't freely publish the pinout diagrams for its chips?  And I thought Intel set the industry standard for paranoia...

The quality of Intel's manuals (# of typos) went noticeably downhill when they switched to the "new" style of font/logo and probably new people, a few years ago.

You've not known hell until you've seen the ``manuals'' for their graphics controllers.  Holy fucking Christ on a crutch are they bad.  No idea whether AMD's are any better.

>> I'm guessing that having 1:1 correspondence between mnemonics and opcodes would make the assembler's job simpler, but I've not written one myself.
It would, but at the expense of being able to write Asm easily.

Unless your brain happens to work the same way as the assembler, of course. Being brought up on RISC first probably makes a difference for me.