| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3
Comments:
<0> is 'intel syntax' only usable on intel chips or not?
<0> anyone ever made an intel syntax ***embler for other chips?
<1> Are there any tricks I can use to reduce the size of http://rafb.net/paste/results/fB2v7q96.html from 75 bytes ?
<0> what if people who like intel syntax are forced to revert to AT&T syntax on other platforms!? imagine the horror :)
<0> course i just read motorola uses 'motorola ***embler syntax' iirc...so unfortunately....intel & AT&T are not the only games in town
<2> hi, I'm new to ***embly, I learnt a little bit, I'm running linux at the moment with nasm, I can't seem to execute it, hte permissions are fine
<0> chrisjw: error message?
<0> chrisjw: how did you compile it?
<2> bash: /home/chrisw69/Desktop/test: cannot execute binary file
<2> I typed nasm test.asm
<0> chrisjw: specify elf!
<2> nasm -elf ?
<0> chrisjw: nasm -f elf myprogram.asm
<2> so it's made a .o file now, do i use gcc to link it?
<0> chrisjw: gcc -o myexecutable myprogram.o
<2> can I just clarify this code with you?
<2> it's only a few lines
<2> mov ah,2
<2> mov dx,oops
<2> oops
<0> chrisjw: do it fast..i gotta go in few minutes
<2> mov ah,9
<2> mov dx,msg
<2> int 21h
<2> int 20h
<2> msg db "hello$"
<2> should that print hello?
<3> ugh why are you doing gcc -blah blah for ***EMBLER
<2> i don't know
<3> gcc is NOT an ***embler.. neither is gas
<2> i'm a noob
<3> loll
<2> i'm using nasm
<3> its ok im just ranting :)
<2> you can always help me if you want!!
<2> i'm very lame!!
<0> chrisjw: i'm not an expert at int's but i think an int only prints one byte...you'll need a loop to get all the chars in your string
<2> no that code is fine
<2> it works on fasm
<2> but i've never used nasm
<0> I440r: you use gcc to create executable from nasm output
<3> function 9 of int 21 displays a string
<3> delimited with $
<2> for nasm do i need to have like
<2> proc main
<2> or something?
<0> I440r: do you have a better way to create executable?
<4> chrisjw, are you writing for linux, right?
<2> yes
<5> seb--, you can make fasm generate executable
<2> i'm very new and only know a little about this type of thng
<0> ravenEx: what about nasm?
<3> nasm myfile.asm -o myfile.o
<3> ld -o myfile myfile.o
<5> seb--, ld
<4> you should see uninstd.h, with all system calls and use man page for parameters p***ing
<2> so using nasm, how would i execute the code I showed earlier?
<3> or you could look in the sources for isforth :)
<5> chrisjw, you need DOSBox
<0> I440r: danku,,,i like it
<2> what is DOSBox?
<3> seb-, i dont. i think the linking operation is total bulls*^$(
<3> a386 is the single greatest ***embler EVERY made (after debpac :)
<0> hkj2, I440r: ever heard of anyone making an 'intel syntax' ***embler for other non-intel chips? just curious
<5> chrisjw, you use DOS system funcs, so you need DOS
<3> nope
<4> no, never...
<0> I440r, hkj2: surely there are enough 'intel syntax' fans out there that is should happen someday
<5> btw can ld link DOS executables? i bet no
<4> have a fast google search :)
<6> does cs:eip create a 48-bit address cap. ?
<3> erm if your in pmode you dont use selectors
<3> if your in dos you need to upgrade :)
<3> hehe
<6> which is better att or intel style? w/o starting a flame war
<6> i personally like att
<3> at&t is an abomination
<3> period
<0> I440r: see..now you are making my case we need to see 'intel syntax' everywhere
<3> the x86 cpu is NOT a motorola processor - whoever decided to put motorola syntax on it is a moron
<3> seb no :)
<0> I440r: what would you suggest instead
<3> we just dont need motorola syntax everywhere ehter
<3> rm -rf gas
<3> rm -rf gcc
<3> and code everything in asm and forth :)
<0> I440r: do you like 'intel syntax' or something else?
<3> but that would be the sane thing to do and the industry is insane
<3> on an intel cpu you use intel syntax
<0> I440r: why does every microcontroller, etc. need to make up a new syntax?....please just use 'intel syntax'!
<3> because they are different ?
<0> I440r: no! a mov is a mov on *any* chip...we don't see lots of ways to do a simple mov
<0> s/see/need
<3> no on some cpu'
<3> a move is a LOAD
<3> lol
<3> or an lda or an ldb or whatever
<6> why is there cs:eip when eip is a 32-bit register and can call any address?
<0> penguin****ers: segmentation is lame i agree...all the cs, ds, ss crap is just a nuisance
<6> what is the cs for then?
<0> penguin****ers: segment address
<0> penguin****ers: in principle an x86 can access terabytes of RAM with each *segment* accessing 4 Gb if i'm not mistaken
<0> penguin****ers: but i'm not an expert...someone else will prolly know better here
<1> With IA32, is EIP given another name in some ***emblers ?
<6> seb-: ok that makes a little sense
<0> penguin****ers: 4 Gb because that is biggest # you can specify in 32bits
<6> Olathe: not that i know of
<1> Can it be used like lea edi, [eip + 4] ?
<6> so basically 16 + 32 = 48 address space, not that any x86 systems support that
<0> penguin****ers: no one needs terabytes of RAM and it is too butt confusing to use all that cs, ds, ss crap
<0> penguin****ers: i personally wish it would just go away
<6> not likely the way intel keeps old crap
<6> in 10 years i'll bet there will still be 16-bit support
<7> !help
<8> when numbers are signed, isnt using an overflow (with 2's complement method) a bit risky?
<8> just a bit, but still risky?
<9> define risk
<9> the processor isnt going to explode
<8> its overwriting the memory cells next to it
<9> huh
<8> the overflow of the 1 bit
<9> when you overflow an integer you arent overwriting anything
<8> that 1 bit is overwriting some other bit
<9> bzzt
<8> who talked about integer?
<9> define "number" then
<8> 10101010
<8> a signed value
<9> where is this signed value stored
<8> to get to it's negative value
<8> you need to use 2's copmlement
<8> 10101010 + 01010101 + 1 = 100000000
<8> you get a 1 bit overflow
<9> in a cpu register or computer word
<9> so what
<8> does it matter?
<9> that 1 bit you're so scared of is called "the carry flag"
<8> but its still overwriting something dosent it?
<10> go read the intel book
<8> what about buffer overflows when using C? when I overflow in there I overwrite memory
<8> what's the difference in here?
<8> billfur : one more word in that tone and you're ignored
<9> here you aren't working with a buffer
<8> ok wcstok
<8> thanks
<10> [aG]Sociopath, it was good advice. The first 100 pages explains all these concepts in detail.
<8> ok billfur sorry
<10> and its free.
<8> link?
<8> wcstok : what are you working with then?
<10> its on intel's site. The IA-32 Intel architecture software developer's manual. They will even send you a free hardcopy if you call them
Return to
#asm
or
Go to some related
logs:
pixma mp110 can't install
#perl
#qemu
fourier.sty install
kubuntu kscreensaverrc
how to install yakuake suse
ubuntu +xvinfo +no adapter
driver marvel 88e81111
#linux
phpeclipse Invalid character
|
|