Again, the solution to that shouldn’t stop you, as it is similar to how you handle filling in the branch offsets in forward branches in if/then/else, and that’s something you have to do, anyways (yes, you can stream out your object code without going back and filling in branch offsets but that leads to slow, ugly code)
I think the reason this _was_ done in old languages is that parsing and compiling were black arts when those languages were created. COBOL and FORTRAN didn’t use stack frames, Algol invented per-function stack frames and later loosened that to per-block ones. That’s what K&R C did, too.
I don’t know which language invented the idea that you could lossen that further, but it might have been C++.
mov ebp esp
sub esp .stacksz
.stacksz = 0x14
Pretty much this. I'm with Joker_vD on this one; I don't see a problem here.
Another approach I thought of is, instead of printing the output right away, append to a list of strings you'll output later, and patch it up yourself. But if we're using an assembler, we might as well get it to work for us. (The patching technique is commonly used for patching binary machine code.)
The above doesn’t solve the problem, though. It moves it to the assembler.