Re: create a file

Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
>
> Frank Kotler wrote:
> > Utilisateur1 wrote:
>
> > > mov offset week,al ; 0=Sunday
> >
> > There's a "syntax issue" here that I think is messing you up
> > later. "offset week" is a number - like "5" - you can't put
> > the contents of al into the number "5"... but you could put
> > it into memory-location 5. What you've asked for is
> > literally impossible. If your assembler is assembling this,
> > it *must* be putting al in to a memory location! So far, so
> > good...
>
> But this problems only arise because of the wired "Intel syntax".

Yeah, we know you don't like Intel syntax (but recommend the
Intel manuals...).

> No wonder nobody wants to learn assembly programming.

What in the world gives you that idea? We've got one on the
hook right now! :)

> Had to assemble and disassemble it to see what's happen.
> Very interesting how A86 ties to correct the "syntax issue"
> the programmer made.

Yeah. A86 is essentially "Intel syntax" but tries *really*
hard to be "helpful"... It'll allow "mov ds, cs", for
example (generates "push cs"/"pop ds", of course). In this
case, being "helpful" is keeping Utilisateur1 from
understanding what "offset" means. As a "src", it's valid.
As a "dest", it's not... so a86 silently ignores it... Not
as good an idea as it sounds at first, IMO.

....
> 0000006e: 0000016e: bb 0196 move.w #_0196,r3 ; <--

Right. You want "move.w _0196, r3" not "move.w #_0196, r3".
I assume Daniella will holler about "move.w r0, #_0196",
which might begin to give a person an idea what "#" means...

Somehow, I'm not sure if this is going to clarify things for
the original poster...

Best,
Frank
.

Relevant Pages

  • Intel Syntax is bad
    ... > 1) Nobody ever heard of this "Assembler". ... NASM, FASM, and RosAsm are "Intel Syntax" compatible are simply wrong. ... "Intel Syntax" was design back in the late 1970s, ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Why there are so many assemblers.
    ... But *clearly* the discussion of the creation of NASM predated ... >> reasonable facsimile to the Intel assembler. ... that was in mid-1996), MASM was still a commercial product, TASM was a ... I have a problem with Rene Tournois calling it an "Intel Syntax" ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Pick the odd one out.
    ... > the x86 architecture) then you would know, ... Maybe you should read the Intel Assembler syntax manual. ... Then you'd learn all about why Intel Syntax ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Why there are so many assemblers.
    ... "Intel Syntax" assembler that was free, ... I became quite interested in the project because, at the time, MASM ... In 1995-1996 when I got my hands on the first releases of NASM, ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Why there are so many assemblers.
    ... >> Thanks for the confirmation on that, Phil! ... > referenced was written *after* the assembler was functional. ... > The impression I got was that people wanted an "Intel Syntax" assembler ... to find any references presently. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)