Assembly Language - Revision history

Paul: /* Syntax */

2023-01-10T16:34:51Z

Syntax

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:34, 10 January 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	* AT&T: Lots of $ and % symbols. Default for most disassembly tools on Linux.		* AT&T: Lots of $ and % symbols. Default for most disassembly tools on Linux.
	* Intel: Cleaner and easier to read, requires the <code>-M intel</code> command line option to <code>objdump</code>.		* Intel: Cleaner and easier to read, requires the <code>-M intel</code> command line option to <code>objdump</code>.

			AT&T and Intel have the operands in opposite orders.

			If unsure, use Intel - if only because it will match the specifications (and the $ and % symbols make AT&T harder to read and more like Perl).

	== Generating assembly from C ==		== Generating assembly from C ==

Paul: /* Links */

2023-01-10T16:13:55Z

Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:13, 10 January 2023
Line 59:		Line 59:
	%.o: %.s		%.o: %.s
	as -o $@ $<		as -o $@ $<

			== Articles ==

			* [https://www.timdbg.com/posts/fakers-guide-to-assembly/ The faker's guide to reading (x86) assembly language]

	== Links ==		== Links ==

Paul: /* Links */

2022-12-24T19:13:45Z

Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:13, 24 December 2022
Line 67:		Line 67:
	* [https://azeria-labs.com/writing-arm-assembly-part-1/ Writing ARM Assembly]		* [https://azeria-labs.com/writing-arm-assembly-part-1/ Writing ARM Assembly]
	* [https://thinkingeek.com/arm-assembler-raspberry-pi/ ARM assembler in Raspberry Pi]		* [https://thinkingeek.com/arm-assembler-raspberry-pi/ ARM assembler in Raspberry Pi]
			* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRs5uAkVzrUqeyKDSzxw0VofIJDCQd_TLFtE36HmYFFPQiIotV-T3PHo1Js9eNTbGayaaJ5dZTNCifl/pub CS301 Assembly Language Programming - Fall 2022]

	[[Category:Programming]]		[[Category:Programming]]

Paul at 17:44, 29 June 2022

2022-06-29T17:44:22Z

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 * EDI: Destination Index
 * EIP: Instruction Point
 == Links ==

Paul: /* Links */

2022-06-29T17:31:57Z

Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:31, 29 June 2022
Line 56:		Line 56:
	* [http://www.bravegnu.org/gnu-eprog/ Embedded Programming with the GNU Toolchain]		* [http://www.bravegnu.org/gnu-eprog/ Embedded Programming with the GNU Toolchain]
	* [https://azeria-labs.com/writing-arm-assembly-part-1/ Writing ARM Assembly]		* [https://azeria-labs.com/writing-arm-assembly-part-1/ Writing ARM Assembly]
			* [https://thinkingeek.com/arm-assembler-raspberry-pi/ ARM assembler in Raspberry Pi]

	[[Category:Programming]]		[[Category:Programming]]

Paul: /* Links */

2019-03-06T10:29:22Z

Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:29, 6 March 2019
Line 55:		Line 55:
	* [http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/x86-jumps.html Intel x86 JUMP quick reference]		* [http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/x86-jumps.html Intel x86 JUMP quick reference]
	* [http://www.bravegnu.org/gnu-eprog/ Embedded Programming with the GNU Toolchain]		* [http://www.bravegnu.org/gnu-eprog/ Embedded Programming with the GNU Toolchain]
			* [https://azeria-labs.com/writing-arm-assembly-part-1/ Writing ARM Assembly]

	[[Category:Programming]]		[[Category:Programming]]

Paul: /* Generating assembly from C */

2018-10-17T09:03:12Z

Generating assembly from C

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:03, 17 October 2018
Line 10:		Line 10:
	Generating assembly: Use the <code>-S</code> flag in gcc or clang, e.g. <code>gcc -S foo.c</code> produces <code>foo.s</code>.		Generating assembly: Use the <code>-S</code> flag in gcc or clang, e.g. <code>gcc -S foo.c</code> produces <code>foo.s</code>.

	Comparison expression in C, such as <code>i < 10</code> (in a `for` loop), appear to be translated to different assembly by different compilers, and not necessarily what you would expect.		Comparison expression in C, such as <code>i < 10</code> (in a <code>for</code> loop), appear to be translated to different assembly by different compilers, and not necessarily what you would expect.

	GCC:		GCC:

Paul at 09:24, 2 April 2018

2018-04-02T09:24:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:24, 2 April 2018
Line 54:		Line 54:
	* [http://www.agner.org/optimize/ Software optimization resources]		* [http://www.agner.org/optimize/ Software optimization resources]
	* [http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/x86-jumps.html Intel x86 JUMP quick reference]		* [http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/x86-jumps.html Intel x86 JUMP quick reference]
	* [http://www.drpaulcarter.com/pcasm/ PC assembly language tutorial]
	* [http://www.bravegnu.org/gnu-eprog/ Embedded Programming with the GNU Toolchain]		* [http://www.bravegnu.org/gnu-eprog/ Embedded Programming with the GNU Toolchain]

	[[Category:Programming]]		[[Category:Programming]]

Paul at 16:14, 7 March 2018

2018-03-07T16:14:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:14, 7 March 2018
Line 56:		Line 56:
	* [http://www.drpaulcarter.com/pcasm/ PC assembly language tutorial]		* [http://www.drpaulcarter.com/pcasm/ PC assembly language tutorial]
	* [http://www.bravegnu.org/gnu-eprog/ Embedded Programming with the GNU Toolchain]		* [http://www.bravegnu.org/gnu-eprog/ Embedded Programming with the GNU Toolchain]

			[[Category:Programming]]

Paul at 16:14, 7 March 2018

2018-03-07T16:14:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:14, 7 March 2018
Line 28:		Line 28:
	Neither compiler compares the integer <code>10</code> with the contents of <code>i</code>. Although the approaches taken by the compilers are functionally identical, it is interesting that they have both decided to generate assembly with different logic to the original code, yet in two different ways.		Neither compiler compares the integer <code>10</code> with the contents of <code>i</code>. Although the approaches taken by the compilers are functionally identical, it is interesting that they have both decided to generate assembly with different logic to the original code, yet in two different ways.

	Furthermore, in both cases the compiler does not compile the <code>i++</code> statement within the <code>for</code> loop to an <code>inc</code> command, contrary to what most C programming books would claim. Possibly the case that the difference between <code>inc</code> and <code>add</code> is non-existent on modern processors, or that the processor itself will automatically treat <code>inc (source)<code> and <code>add $1, (source)</code> as the same.		Furthermore, in both cases the compiler does not compile the <code>i++</code> statement within the <code>for</code> loop to an <code>inc</code> command, contrary to what most C programming books would claim. Possibly the case that the difference between <code>inc</code> and <code>add</code> is non-existent on modern processors, or that the processor itself will automatically treat <code>inc (source)</code> and <code>add $1, (source)</code> as the same.

	== Registers ==		== Registers ==