inline assembly

[Jrdman]

i wrote this code
int main(void){
asm("movb $0x00,%ah \n"
"movb $0x0d,%al \n"
"int $0x10");
return 0;
}
to disappair the cursor but when it excutes the program craches with
the message "the memory can not be writen" what's wrong with this
code?

[Walter Roberson]

In article <52**********************************@m45g2000hsb. googlegroups.com>,
Jrdman <ah*********@gmail.comwrote:

>i wrote this code
int main(void){
asm("movb $0x00,%ah \n"
"movb $0x0d,%al \n"
"int $0x10");
return 0;
}
to disappair the cursor but when it excutes the program craches with
the message "the memory can not be writen" what's wrong with this
code?

inline assembly is not part of the C standard. Whatever your compiler
does with it is compiler specific, and needs to be inquired about
in a newgroup that deals with your development environment.
As far as the C language is concerned, your code is just a normal
framework for main() that contains as its body a call to an
unprototyped routine named 'asm' (that is not part of the
C standard library) that is to be passed in a pointer
to a single static string.

--
"The slogans of an inadequate criticism peddle ideas to fashion"
-- Walter Benjamin

[santosh]

Jrdman wrote:

i wrote this code
int main(void){
asm("movb $0x00,%ah \n"
"movb $0x0d,%al \n"
"int $0x10");
return 0;
}
to disappair the cursor but when it excutes the program craches with
the message "the memory can not be writen" what's wrong with this
code?

Better ask in alt.lang.asm or comp.lang.asm.x86.

[Bartc]

"Jrdman" <ah*********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:52**********************************@m45g2000 hsb.googlegroups.com...

>i wrote this code
int main(void){
asm("movb $0x00,%ah \n"
"movb $0x0d,%al \n"
"int $0x10");
return 0;
}
to disappair the cursor but when it excutes the program craches with
the message "the memory can not be writen" what's wrong with this
code?

This is not a C issue.

Looks like some code that runs under DOS, so even less on-topic. (However
those parameters to INT don't look right; you may want to double check the
0x10, 0x0D, 0x00, and which registers you put those in.)

Might be more familiar to the guys in comp.lang.asm.x86
--
Bartc

[CBFalconer]

Jrdman wrote:

>
i wrote this code
int main(void){
asm("movb $0x00,%ah \n"
"movb $0x0d,%al \n"
"int $0x10");
return 0;
}
to disappair the cursor but when it excutes the program craches
with the message "the memory can not be writen" what's wrong with
this code?

The word 'asm' is a syntax error. It doesn't exist in standard C.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer said:

Jrdman wrote:

>>
i wrote this code
int main(void){
asm("movb $0x00,%ah \n"
"movb $0x0d,%al \n"
"int $0x10");
return 0;
}
to disappair the cursor but when it excutes the program craches
with the message "the memory can not be writen" what's wrong with
this code?

The word 'asm' is a syntax error.

No, it isn't. In the above case, it is being used to call a function named
asm which takes char * (or perhaps const char *) and returns int, and the
syntax looks just fine to me.

It doesn't exist in standard C.

The failure of a function name to be listed in the standard library is
insufficient to make the use of that name a syntax error.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Dann Corbit]

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
news:h5******************************@bt.com...

CBFalconer said:

>Jrdman wrote:

>>>
i wrote this code
int main(void){
asm("movb $0x00,%ah \n"
"movb $0x0d,%al \n"
"int $0x10");
return 0;
}
to disappair the cursor but when it excutes the program craches
with the message "the memory can not be writen" what's wrong with
this code?

The word 'asm' is a syntax error.

No, it isn't. In the above case, it is being used to call a function named
asm which takes char * (or perhaps const char *) and returns int, and the
syntax looks just fine to me.

>It doesn't exist in standard C.

The failure of a function name to be listed in the standard library is
insufficient to make the use of that name a syntax error.

The keyword asm has been a part of the C language for a long time. Exactly
what that keyword does or how it should be used is something more of a
mystery. However, in C99 we have this:

J.5.10 The asm keyword

1 The asm keyword may be used to insert assembly language directly into the
translator output (6.8). The most common implementation is via a statement
of the form:

asm ( character-string-literal );

Page 512 Portability issues §J.5.13


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Richard Heathfield]

Dann Corbit said:

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
news:h5******************************@bt.com...

>CBFalconer said:

>>Jrdman wrote:

i wrote this code
int main(void){
asm("movb $0x00,%ah \n"
"movb $0x0d,%al \n"
"int $0x10");
return 0;
}
to disappair the cursor but when it excutes the program craches
with the message "the memory can not be writen" what's wrong with
this code?

The word 'asm' is a syntax error.

No, it isn't. In the above case, it is being used to call a function
named asm which takes char * (or perhaps const char *) and returns int,
and the syntax looks just fine to me.

>>It doesn't exist in standard C.

The failure of a function name to be listed in the standard library is
insufficient to make the use of that name a syntax error.

The keyword asm has been a part of the C language for a long time.
Exactly what that keyword does or how it should be used is something more
of a
mystery. However, in C99 we have this:

J.5.10 The asm keyword

1 The asm keyword may be used to insert assembly language directly into
the translator output (6.8). The most common implementation is via a
statement of the form:

asm ( character-string-literal );

Right, but of course that's in a non-normative appendix, and the following
text is relevant:

J.5 Common extensions
1 The following extensions are widely used in many systems, but are not
portable to all implementations. The inclusion of any extension that may
cause a strictly conforming program to become invalid renders an
implementation nonconforming. Examples of such extensions are new
keywords, extra library functions declared in standard headers, or
predefined macros with names that do not begin with an underscore.

The asm keyword is /not/ a standard keyword. C99 implementations must be
able to translate the following code correctly:

#include <stdio.h>

int asm(const char *s)
{
puts(s);
}

int main(void)
{
asm("movb $0x00,%ah \n"
"movb $0x0d,%al \n"
"int $0x10");
return 0;
}

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[CBFalconer]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

CBFalconer said:

>Jrdman wrote:

>>>
i wrote this code
int main(void){
asm("movb $0x00,%ah \n"
"movb $0x0d,%al \n"
"int $0x10");
return 0;
}
to disappair the cursor but when it excutes the program craches
with the message "the memory can not be writen" what's wrong
with this code?

The word 'asm' is a syntax error.

No, it isn't. In the above case, it is being used to call a
function named asm which takes char * (or perhaps const char *)
and returns int, and the syntax looks just fine to me.

Yes, nailed in a sloppy statement again. However I maintain the
sloppy one will do a better job of alerting the OP to the real
problem than this one will.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

[Antoninus Twink]

On 10 Jul 2008 at 3:32, CBFalconer wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>CBFalconer said:

>>The word 'asm' is a syntax error.

No, it isn't.

Yes, nailed in a sloppy statement again. However I maintain the
sloppy one will do a better job of alerting the OP to the real
problem than this one will.

It will certainly do a good job of alerting him to the fact that you're
a dick, and that he would to well to ignore all the nonsense you
dribble.

[Richard]

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>CBFalconer said:

>>Jrdman wrote:

i wrote this code
int main(void){
asm("movb $0x00,%ah \n"
"movb $0x0d,%al \n"
"int $0x10");
return 0;
}
to disappair the cursor but when it excutes the program craches
with the message "the memory can not be writen" what's wrong
with this code?

The word 'asm' is a syntax error.

No, it isn't. In the above case, it is being used to call a
function named asm which takes char * (or perhaps const char *)
and returns int, and the syntax looks just fine to me.

Yes, nailed in a sloppy statement again. However I maintain the
sloppy one will do a better job of alerting the OP to the real
problem than this one will.

And of course you did not notice the plethora of other "warnings" from
the jobsworths already mentioning this?

[noagbodjivictor]

On Jul 10, 9:41*am, Richard<[e-mail]:

CBFalconer <[e-mail]:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

CBFalconer said:
Jrdman wrote:

>>i wrote this code
int main(void){
* * asm("movb $0x00,%ah \n"
* * * * "movb $0x0d,%al \n"
* * * * "int $0x10");
* * * * return 0;
* * * * }
to disappair the cursor but when it excutes the program craches
with the message "the memory can not be writen" what's wrong
with this code?

>The word 'asm' is a syntax error.

No, it isn't. In the above case, it is being used to call a
function named asm which takes char * (or perhaps const char *)
and returns int, and the syntax looks just fine to me.

Yes, nailed in a sloppy statement again. *However I maintain the
sloppy one will do a better job of alerting the OP to the real
problem than this one will.

And of course you did not notice the plethora of other "warnings" from
the jobsworths already mentioning this?

What happened to this once peaceful group???

[Antoninus Twink]

On 10 Jul 2008 at 17:32, no*************@gmail.com wrote:

What happened to this once peaceful group???

In one word: Heathfield.

He has poisioned the atmosphere in this group, and overseen it going
further and further from its original charter by trying to bully people
into refusing to discuss all of C, but instead restrict "topicality" to
the subset defined in the last-but-one ISO Standard.

[Keith Thompson]

"no*************@gmail.com" <no*************@gmail.comwrites:
[...

What happened to this once peaceful group???

Trolls.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[CBFalconer]

"no*************@gmail.com" wrote:

Richard<[e-mail]:

>CBFalconer <[e-mail]:

.... snip ...

>>

>>Yes, nailed in a sloppy statement again. However I maintain the
sloppy one will do a better job of alerting the OP to the real
problem than this one will.

And of course you did not notice the plethora of other "warnings"
from the jobsworths already mentioning this?

What happened to this once peaceful group???

FYI that particular Richard (<rg****@gmail.com\>) and Antoninus
Twink are known dedicated trolls, and should always be ignored,
preferably plonked. Their sole objective is to disrupt the
newsgroup.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

[Richard]

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:

"no*************@gmail.com" wrote:

>Richard<[e-mail]:

>>CBFalconer <[e-mail]:

... snip ...

>>>
Yes, nailed in a sloppy statement again. However I maintain the
sloppy one will do a better job of alerting the OP to the real
problem than this one will.

And of course you did not notice the plethora of other "warnings"
from the jobsworths already mentioning this?

What happened to this once peaceful group???

FYI that particular Richard (<rg****@gmail.com\>) and Antoninus
Twink are known dedicated trolls, and should always be ignored,
preferably plonked. Their sole objective is to disrupt the
newsgroup.

Commenting on your ludicrous net nannying and penchant for messing up
even the simplest solutions is not "trolling". I comment on C/C
development in other threads when I feel there is something I can
contribute or feel strongly enough about where others have not already
echoed those views. You should try it sometime - you might make less
mistakes and not appear so foolish with your rants and ill considered
responses.