4 files changed, 0 insertions, 108 deletions
diff --git a/repos/extra/nasm/.checksum b/repos/extra/nasm/.checksum
deleted file mode 100644
index 3a4c9995..00000000
--- a/repos/extra/nasm/.checksum
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,2 +0,0 @@
-9254c5d12801b37f2024cb092a20cbed59f689d8b7d6abd95a6f2ca6fc1a168f  nasm-3.01-musl.patch
-68d7d5d4a40f935bde5447a11c8cfb8e80d8b8f4b58d76761d9e0e4977906b4f  nasm-3.01.tar.xz
diff --git a/repos/extra/nasm/.files b/repos/extra/nasm/.files
deleted file mode 100644
index 3b47b8ff..00000000
--- a/repos/extra/nasm/.files
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,9 +0,0 @@
-drwxr-xr-x root/root    usr/
-drwxr-xr-x root/root    usr/bin/
--rwxr-xr-x root/root    usr/bin/nasm
--rwxr-xr-x root/root    usr/bin/ndisasm
-drwxr-xr-x root/root    usr/share/
-drwxr-xr-x root/root    usr/share/man/
-drwxr-xr-x root/root    usr/share/man/man1/
--rw-r--r-- root/root    usr/share/man/man1/nasm.1.gz
--rw-r--r-- root/root    usr/share/man/man1/ndisasm.1.gz
diff --git a/repos/extra/nasm/abuild b/repos/extra/nasm/abuild
deleted file mode 100644
index a3e853ef..00000000
--- a/repos/extra/nasm/abuild
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
-name=nasm
-version=3.01
-release=1
-source="https://www.$name.us/pub/$name/releasebuilds/$version/$name-$version.tar.xz
-	nasm-3.01-musl.patch"
diff --git a/repos/extra/nasm/nasm-3.01-musl.patch b/repos/extra/nasm/nasm-3.01-musl.patch
deleted file mode 100644
index 20efe150..00000000
--- a/repos/extra/nasm/nasm-3.01-musl.patch
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,92 +0,0 @@
-https://github.com/netwide-assembler/nasm/commit/44e89ba9b650b5e1533bca43682e167f51a3511f
-From: "H. Peter Anvin (Intel)" <hpa@zytor.com>
-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 12:48:32 -0700
-Subject: [PATCH] compiler.h: drop the stupid C++-style cast-to-bool hack
-
-The C++-style cast-to-bool hack was broken in concept that it doesn't help the
-fundamental problem -- implicit conversions are broken for the
-backwards compatibility enum definition -- as well as in
-implementation, as it misspelled __STDC_VERSION__ as __STDC_VERSION.
-
-The #ifdef bool test *should* have prevented this problem, but
-apparently several compilers do define "bool" in <stdbool.h> even when
-it is a keyword, in violation of the C23 spec.
-
-Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin (Intel) <hpa@zytor.com>
---- a/include/compiler.h
-+++ b/include/compiler.h
-@@ -181,19 +181,10 @@ size_t strlcpy(char *, const char *, size_t);
- char * pure_func strrchrnul(const char *, int);
- #endif
-
--#if !defined(__cplusplus) || (__STDC_VERSION >= 202311L)
- /* C++ and C23 have bool, false, and true as proper keywords */
-+#if !defined(__cplusplus) || (__STDC_VERSION__ >= 202311L)
- # ifdef HAVE_STDBOOL_H
--/* If <stdbool.h> exists, include it explicitly to prevent it from
--   begin included later, causing the "bool" macro to be defined. */
- #  include <stdbool.h>
--#  ifdef bool
--/* Force bool to be a typedef instead of a macro. What a "clever" hack
--   this is... */
--    typedef bool                /* The macro definition of bool */
--#  undef bool
--        bool;                   /* No longer the macro definition */
--#  endif
- # elif defined(HAVE___BOOL)
-    typedef _Bool bool;
- #  define false 0
-@@ -201,14 +192,10 @@ char * pure_func strrchrnul(const char *, int);
- # else
- /* This is a bit dangerous, because casting to this ersatz bool
-    will not produce the same result as the standard (bool) cast.
--   Instead, use the bool() constructor-style macro defined below. */
-+   Instead, use the explicit construct !!x instead of relying on
-+   implicit conversions or casts. */
- typedef enum bool { false, true } bool;
- # endif
--/* This amounts to a C++-style conversion cast to bool.  This works
--   because C ignores an argument-taking macro when used without an
--   argument and because bool was redefined as a typedef if it previously
--   was defined as a macro (see above.) */
--# define bool(x) ((bool)!!(x))
- #endif
-
- /* Create a NULL pointer of the same type as the address of
-@@ -321,11 +308,11 @@ static inline void *mempset(void *dst, int c, size_t n)
-  * less likely to be taken.
-  */
- #ifdef HAVE___BUILTIN_EXPECT
--# define likely(x)	__builtin_expect(bool(x), true)
--# define unlikely(x)	__builtin_expect(bool(x), false)
-+# define likely(x)	__builtin_expect(!!(x), true)
-+# define unlikely(x)	__builtin_expect(!!(x), false)
- #else
--# define likely(x)	bool(x)
--# define unlikely(x)	bool(x)
-+# define likely(x)	(!!(x))
-+# define unlikely(x)	(!!(x))
- #endif
-
- #ifdef HAVE___BUILTIN_PREFETCH
-
-https://github.com/netwide-assembler/nasm/commit/746e7c9efa37cec9a44d84a1e96b8c38f385cc1f
-From: "H. Peter Anvin (Intel)" <hpa@zytor.com>
-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 13:05:55 -0700
-Subject: [PATCH] compiler.h: the test for "neither C++ nor C23" still wrong
-
-The test needs to test for neither nor; as it was it tested "(not C++)
-or C23" which was not at all what was intended...
-
-Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin (Intel) <hpa@zytor.com>
---- a/include/compiler.h
-+++ b/include/compiler.h
-@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ char * pure_func strrchrnul(const char *, int);
- #endif
-
- /* C++ and C23 have bool, false, and true as proper keywords */
--#if !defined(__cplusplus) || (__STDC_VERSION__ >= 202311L)
-+#if !defined(__cplusplus) && (__STDC_VERSION__ < 202311L)
- # ifdef HAVE_STDBOOL_H
- #  include <stdbool.h>
- # elif defined(HAVE___BOOL)