Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Martin Str|mberg <ams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:22:31 +0200 (CEST)
Frank Kotler <fbkotler@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
global _start
section .text
_start:
nop
mov ebx, -1
mov bx, ds
lsl eax, bx
lsl eax, ebx
lsl eax, [last_word]
mov eax, [last_word] ; segfault! (but not with ax)
mov eax, 1
int 80h
align 16
code_size equ $ - $$
section .data
times 4096 - code_size + 20h - 2 db 0
last_word dw 2Bh
I've tried this, but I can't figure out how you are supposed to link
this sucker. All I get is segmentation fault or silent failure to run
it at all.
BTW, my nasm (a old one, I think) refuses to assemble "lsl eax, ebx".
Please tell me how, for Linux ELF and DJGPP.
--
MartinS
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- References:
- NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Prev by Date: Re: Intel illogical syntax...
- Next by Date: Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Previous by thread: Re: Alexei fixes for NASM w/Borland TD
- Next by thread: Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|