Inline asm commands

R

remus.dragos

I'm trying to learn the syntax used by
__asm__("/*here commands*/");

but I din't find useful resources to explain how to do it.
If anybody can help me a bit here please with the syntax: a few
explanations or/and resources where to look at.
 
A

Alexei A. Frounze

I'm trying to learn the syntax used by
__asm__("/*here commands*/");

Inline assembly is implementation specific, it is not covered by the C
standard and this group is dedicataed exactly to standard C.
but I din't find useful resources to explain how to do it.

You must check the documentation for your compiler. If your compiler is a
free one (such as e.g. GNU gcc or Open Watcom C/C++) you must also download
documentation, not just binraries, libraries and headers.
If anybody can help me a bit here please with the syntax: a few
explanations or/and resources where to look at.

We don't even know what compiler and what CPU you want this for. Please
check the documentation for your compiler. If this is for GNU gcc and intel
80x86 CPU, there also used to be some tutorials on the internet on the
subject, something like Brennan's Guide to Inline Assembly -- google it if
it's what you want.

Alex
 
R

remus.dragos

I am using mingw for most applications on a P4. I have experienced
assembly with masm, nasm, hla, etc.. but the syntax was the one who
bothered me. And Brennan's guide is what I needed.
Thank you for the answer.
 
C

Christopher Benson-Manica

I am using mingw for most applications on a P4. I have experienced
assembly with masm, nasm, hla, etc.. but the syntax was the one who
bothered me. And Brennan's guide is what I needed.

It is proper Usenet etiquette to include the text you are replying to.
To do this using Google groups, please follow the instructions below,
penned by Keith Thompson:

If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.
 
K

Kenny McCormack

Christopher Benson-Manica said:
It is proper Usenet etiquette to include the text you are replying to.
To do this using Google groups, please follow the instructions below,
penned by Keith Thompson:

If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.

You (and others, such as Keith) are wasting your breath. They'll never get
it. And I'll tell you why.

Imagine that there's a mouse - and the mouse is the Usenet. You and I can
see that it is a mouse and we behave accordingly. But now there is a class
of users (we'll call them "googlers") that are wearing these funny weird
glasses that make them see not a mouse, but an elephant. Seeing an
elephant (i.e., the Usenet as a web page), they also behave accordingly.
And no amount of verbiage from us is going to convince them that it's not
an elephant - that it is only a mouse.

To make this more clear, to a googler, it doesn't make any sense to "quote"
(whatever the heck that is...), in fact, to do would be absurd, when all
the rest of the articles in the thread are right there in front of their
faces (just as clear as the trunk on that mouse, er, elephant). And no
amount of verbiage from us is going to convince them not to believe what
they see. The point is you can *never* convince someone that what they see
isn't reality. The only way you can address the problem is to help them
fix their eyesight (or help them remove their funny glasses).
 
K

Keith Thompson

You (and others, such as Keith) are wasting your breath. They'll never get
it. And I'll tell you why.

Again? We've already been over this.

A number of groups.google.com users *have* learned to post properly.
If it appears otherwise, it's because new users keep showing up. We
have a choice between educating them as they show up and letting them
continue their ignorance.

[...]
To make this more clear, to a googler, it doesn't make any sense to "quote"
(whatever the heck that is...), in fact, to do would be absurd, when all
the rest of the articles in the thread are right there in front of their
faces (just as clear as the trunk on that mouse, er, elephant). And no
amount of verbiage from us is going to convince them not to believe what
they see. The point is you can *never* convince someone that what they see
isn't reality. The only way you can address the problem is to help them
fix their eyesight (or help them remove their funny glasses).

Nonsense. Any intelligent person can learn that not everyone sees
things the way they do. All it takes is someone willing to tell them.

Something I've started doing, and I suggest we all do when posting the
standard Google instructions, is asking them to complain to Google
about their broken interface. Perhaps if enough of their users
complain that their software is making them look like fools, they
might finally fix it.
 
M

Mabden

Kenny McCormack said:
To make this more clear, to a googler, it doesn't make any sense to "quote"
(whatever the heck that is...), in fact, to do would be absurd, when all
the rest of the articles in the thread are right there in front of their
faces (just as clear as the trunk on that mouse, er, elephant). And no
amount of verbiage from us is going to convince them not to believe what
they see. The point is you can *never* convince someone that what they see
isn't reality. The only way you can address the problem is to help them
fix their eyesight (or help them remove their funny glasses).

Would a brick to the face help?
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top