comp.lang.asm.x86

• Date Index

• AMD announces SSE5 Instructions, dave
  • Re: AMD announces SSE5 Instructions, Wolfgang Kern
    • Re: AMD announces SSE5 Instructions, dave
• small program, almas
• very small code, almas
  • Re: very small code, Jerry Coffin
    • Re: very small code, Terje Mathisen
      • Re: very small code, Sebastian Biallas
      • Re: very small code, James Van Buskirk
• More bits: and, NOT operation, philbo30
  • Re: More bits: and, NOT operation, nbaker2328
  • Re: More bits: and, NOT operation, Frank Kotler
  • Re: More bits: and, NOT operation, pete
  • Re: More bits: and, NOT operation, Bx.C / x87asm
  • Re: More bits: and, NOT operation, Wolfgang Kern
• call stack's order of parameters, Andre
  • Re: call stack's order of parameters, rhyde@xxxxxxxxxx
    • Re: call stack's order of parameters, Terence
  • Re: call stack's order of parameters, Andre
    • Re: call stack's order of parameters, Bjarni Juliusson
      • Re: call stack's order of parameters, Charles Richmond
      • Re: call stack's order of parameters, Bjarni Juliusson
• definition of movl, Andre
  • Re: definition of movl, Andre
  • Re: definition of movl, Bjarni Juliusson
• GCC complains when I use while loop in a function, vhg119
  • Re: GCC complains when I use while loop in a function, Bjarni Juliusson
    • Re: GCC complains when I use while loop in a function, vhg119
      • Re: GCC complains when I use while loop in a function, vhg119
      • Re: GCC complains when I use while loop in a function, Bjarni Juliusson
      • Re: GCC complains when I use while loop in a function, vhg119
      • Re: GCC complains when I use while loop in a function, Bjarni Juliusson
      • Re: GCC complains when I use while loop in a function, vhg119
• Re: timing code the possibly most accurate way in an Intel Box?, Robert Redelmeier
  • Re: timing code the possibly most accurate way in an Intel Box?, MIKEBIKEZX7
    • Re: timing code the possibly most accurate way in an Intel Box?, Tim Roberts
    • Re: timing code the possibly most accurate way in an Intel Box?, Bob Masta
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: timing code the possibly most accurate way in an Intel Box?, robertwessel2@xxxxxxxxx
  • Re: timing code the possibly most accurate way in an Intel Box?, Wolfgang Kern
    • Re: timing code the possibly most accurate way in an Intel Box?, mike
      • Re: timing code the possibly most accurate way in an Intel Box?, dave
      • Re: timing code the possibly most accurate way in an Intel Box?, Wolfgang Kern
      • Re: timing code the possibly most accurate way in an Intel Box?, Bob Masta
      • Re: timing code the possibly most accurate way in an Intel Box?, Spiro Trikaliotis
      • Re: timing code the possibly most accurate way in an Intel Box?, Robert Redelmeier
• Basic bits operations - AND, philbo30
  • Re: Basic bits operations - AND, Robert Redelmeier
  • Re: Basic bits operations - AND, Bjarni Juliusson
  • Re: Basic bits operations - AND, Bx.C / x87asm
• Loading segment registers with selector, vhg119
  • Re: Loading segment registers with selector, Bx.C / x87asm
• how to intialise and detect mouse in DOS console prompt, lavanaik2000
  • Re: how to intialise and detect mouse in DOS console prompt, Bx.C / x87asm
    • Re: how to intialise and detect mouse in DOS console prompt, Terence
      • Re: how to intialise and detect mouse in DOS console prompt, Glucklich
• Re: TRUE reset in software?, Charles Marslett
• Announcement, LinuxAsm
  • Re: Announcement, dave
    • Re: Announcement, Frank Kotler
• What I know so far: Protected Mode, Rings, and the relationship between OS and Application, vhg119
  • Re: What I know so far: Protected Mode, Rings, and the relationship between OS and Application, Bx.C / x87asm
    • Re: What I know so far: Protected Mode, Rings, and the relationship between OS and Application, vhg119
      • Re: What I know so far: Protected Mode, Rings, and the relationship between OS and Application, Robert Redelmeier
    • Re: What I know so far: Protected Mode, Rings, and the relationship between OS and Application, vhg119
      • Re: What I know so far: Protected Mode, Rings, and the relationship between OS and Application, Bx.C / x87asm
      • Re: What I know so far: Protected Mode, Rings, and the relationship between OS and Application, vhg119
      • Re: What I know so far: Protected Mode, Rings, and the relationship between OS and Application, Bx.C / x87asm
      • Re: What I know so far: Protected Mode, Rings, and the relationship between OS and Application, Bx.C / x87asm
      • Re: What I know so far: Protected Mode, Rings, and the relationship between OS and Application, vhg119
      • Re: What I know so far: Protected Mode, Rings, and the relationship between OS and Application, Bx.C / x87asm
      • Re: What I know so far: Protected Mode, Rings, and the relationship between OS and Application, vhg119
      • Re: What I know so far: Protected Mode, Rings, and the relationship between OS and Application, vhg119
      • Re: What I know so far: Protected Mode, Rings, and the relationship between OS and Application, vhg119
      • Re: What I know so far: Protected Mode, Rings, and the relationship between OS and Application, Gil Hamilton
  • Re: What I know so far: Protected Mode, Rings, and the relationship between OS and Application, Gil Hamilton
    • Re: What I know so far: Protected Mode, Rings, and the relationship between OS and Application, vhg119
• A couple questions about the stack in real mode., vhg119
  • Re: A couple questions about the stack in real mode., Jack Klein
  • Re: A couple questions about the stack in real mode., Frank Kotler
    • Re: A couple questions about the stack in real mode., vhg119
      • Re: A couple questions about the stack in real mode., vhg119
      • Re: A couple questions about the stack in real mode., Bjarni Juliusson
  • Re: A couple questions about the stack in real mode., Bjarni Juliusson
    • Re: A couple questions about the stack in real mode., vhg119
      • Re: A couple questions about the stack in real mode., s_dubrovich
  • Re: A couple questions about the stack in real mode., Eric
• GCC: pushing and calling a function, jgraveskc
• DVI, strangelove90
  • Re: DVI, Dirk Wolfgang Glomp
    • Re: DVI, Dirk Wolfgang Glomp
      • Re: DVI, strangelove90
  • Re: DVI, Bx.C / x87asm
• Division algorithm, pabloreda
  • Re: Division algorithm, Phil Carmody
    • Re: Division algorithm, pabloreda
      • Re: Division algorithm, Phil Carmody
• Conversion uchar to float, Thomas Pototschnig
  • Re: Conversion uchar to float, randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    • Re: Conversion uchar to float, Terje Mathisen
  • Re: Conversion uchar to float, James Van Buskirk
    • Re: Conversion uchar to float, James Van Buskirk
    • Re: Conversion uchar to float, Terje Mathisen
  • Re: Conversion uchar to float, aku ankka
  • Re: Conversion uchar to float, ,a\\/b
    • Re: Conversion uchar to float, Terje Mathisen
      • Re: Conversion uchar to float, Sebastian Biallas
      • Re: Conversion uchar to float, Terje Mathisen
      • Re: Conversion uchar to float, Thomas Pototschnig
• Please explain., Zibri
  • Re: Please explain., Frank Kotler
  • Re: Please explain., Bx.C / x87asm
    • Re: Please explain., Zibri
      • Strange calculation.., Zibri
      • Re: Strange calculation.., Bx.C / x87asm
      • Re: Strange calculation.., Bx.C / x87asm
      • Re: Strange calculation.., Bx.C / x87asm
      • Re: Strange calculation.., Tobias Weingartner
      • Re: Strange calculation.., Zibri
      • Re: Strange calculation.., Zibri
• Get the FAQs, comp.lang.asm.x86
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Get the FAQs, comp.lang.asm.x86
  • Get the FAQs, comp.lang.asm.x86
  • Get the FAQs, comp.lang.asm.x86
• SUB Befehl, Benjamin A. Bartsch
  • Re: SUB Befehl, Wolfgang Kern
    • Re: SUB Befehl, Bx.C / x87asm
  • Re: SUB Befehl, Benjamin A. Bartsch
• Re: uses of xor, Charles Richmond
• interrupt routing, how-to?, Xianzheng Zhou
  • Re: interrupt routing, how-to?, SpooK
    • Re: interrupt routing, how-to?, dave
• Editor supporting code changes via a patch deck and update utility ?, John H. Lindsay
  • Re: Editor supporting code changes via a patch deck and update utility ?, dave
  • Re: Editor supporting code changes via a patch deck and update utility ?, Jim Leonard
  • Re: Editor supporting code changes via a patch deck and update utility ?, Terence
• Re: Fat Instruction Macro, John.Richard.Leonard.no.spam@xxxxxxxxx
  • Re: Fat Instruction Macro, Bx.C / x87asm
  • Re: Fat Instruction Macro, Jim Leonard
    • Re: Fat Instruction Macro, Spoon
  • Re: Fat Instruction Macro, Tim Roberts
    • Re: Fat Instruction Macro, John.Richard.Leonard.no.spam@xxxxxxxxx
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Fat Instruction Macro, John.Richard.Leonard.no.spam@xxxxxxxxx
    • Re: Fat Instruction Macro, dave
• Having trouble posting?, comp.lang.asm.x86
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Having trouble posting?, comp.lang.asm.x86
  • Having trouble posting?, comp.lang.asm.x86
  • Having trouble posting?, comp.lang.asm.x86
  • Having trouble posting?, comp.lang.asm.x86
• Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, Ed Beroset
  • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, Robert Redelmeier
    • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, Richard Russell
      • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, Robert Redelmeier
      • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, Dumb Newbie
      • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, Robert Redelmeier
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, Robert Redelmeier
  • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, Wolfgang Kern
    • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, Tim Roberts
      • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, Richard Russell
      • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, Bx.C / x87asm
      • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, Alex Buell
      • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, Bx.C / x87asm
      • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, Robert Redelmeier
      • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, ArarghMail807NOSPAM
      • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, Robert Redelmeier
      • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, Terje Mathisen
      • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, Robert Redelmeier
      • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, dave
      • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, Terje Mathisen
      • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, dave
      • Re: LOOP - Why so slow?, randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: MACRO to replace IMUL with LEA, SHL, ADD, aleksa
• Re: AMD64 docs updated on 2007 July 12, dave
  • Re: AMD64 docs updated on 2007 July 12, Bx.C / x87asm
    • Re: AMD64 docs updated on 2007 July 12, dave
• Re: implementing parallelism, Scott J. McCaughrin
  • Re: implementing parallelism, robertwessel2@xxxxxxxxx
  • Re: implementing parallelism, Tim Roberts
    • Re: implementing parallelism, robertwessel2@xxxxxxxxx
      • Re: implementing parallelism, ArarghMail807NOSPAM
      • Re: implementing parallelism, robertwessel2@xxxxxxxxx
      • Re: implementing parallelism, ArarghMail807NOSPAM
    • Re: implementing parallelism, Scott J. McCaughrin
      • Re: implementing parallelism, Bx.C / x87asm
      • Re: implementing parallelism, aku ankka
      • Re: implementing parallelism, robertwessel2@xxxxxxxxx
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: implementing parallelism, dave

• Security
• UNIX
• Linux
• Coding
• Usenet

• Archive
• About
• Privacy
• Search
• Imprint