I have a program in 8086 and C languages now i want to compare the machine code of each program. How can I get machine code of C and assembly 8086 code
I use emu8086 and DEV .
How can I get machine code of C and assembly 8086 code
Compile the C code using the standard compiler
Assemble the C code using the standard assembler
That gives you the machine code.
Then, assuming you are really wanting to compare the code ... :
use a hex dump tool to look at / compare the two code files, or
use a disassembler and compare the dissasembled versions of the C code with your original assembly code, or
look up in your compiler documentation how to get it to output assembly language ...
Related
I'm learning assembly for 80x86 this semester. A typical asm file I write looks something like
.model tiny
.486
.data
#initializations
.code
.startup
#actual code
.exit
end
I was expecting a similar format when I created a .s file for a simple hello world. But I don't see any of the segments with their proper names and it's all very different. I compile using g++ -S -O0 hello.c
Why is the assembly for c so different than the assembly they make us write in class? Is the assembly I'm learning used by a different programming language? If I want to get the assembly version (that I'm used to) of hello world from some higher-level code, how do I do that?
The code does not match your command line. That is neither C (file name) nor C++ code (command line). That is assembly language.
Assembly language varies by tool (masm, tasm, nasm, gas, etc), and is not expected to be compatible nor standard in any way. Not talking about just intel vs at&t, all of the code, and this applies to all targets not just x86, easily seen with ARM and others.
You should try to use the assembler not a C nor C++ compiler as that creates yet another assembly language even though gcc for example will pass the assembly language on to gas it can pre-process it through the C preprocessor creating yet another programming language that is incompatible with the gnu assembler it is fed to.
x86 is the last if ever assembly language/instruction set you want to learn, if you are going to learn it then starting with the 8086/88 is IMO the preferred way, much more understandable despite the nuances. Since this appears to be a class you are stuck with this ISA and cannot chose a better first instruction set. (first, second, third...)
Very much within the x86 world, but also for any other target, expect that the language is incompatible between tools and if it happens to work or mostly work that is a bonus. Likewise there is no reason to assume that any tool will have a "masm compatible" or other mode, simply stating intel vs at&t is only a fraction of the language problem and is in no way expected to make the code port between tools.
Re-write the code for the assembly language used for the assembler is the bottom line.
I want to write some inline assembly in a DOS program which is compiled using Turbo C 2.01. When I write
asm {
nop
}
the compiler claims that in-line assembly is not allowed in function .... See:
Any ideas?
See the Turbo C user manual page 430:
Inline assembly not allowed
Your source file contains inline assembly language statements and you are compiling it from within the
Integrated Environment. You must use the TCC command to compile this
source file.
I believe that you need also to pass the -B option to TCC (page 455).
Alternatively you can use __emit__ (page 103) for relatively simple code entered as machine code rather than assembler mnemonics.
It seems an odd restriction to not allow inline assembly in the IDE. You might consider "upgrading" to Turbo C++ 3.0 which I believe does allow it. I would imagine that TC++ will compile C code when presented with a .c file, or that the IDE can be set to compile C explicitly. There's a manual for that too.
Turbo C converts C code directly into machine code without using an assembler phase, and thus cannot include assembly language source within a program. What it can do, however, is use the __emit directive to insert machine code. The cleanest way to use that is probably to use a separate assembler (or perhaps DEBUG) to process the code of interest by itself into a COM file, and then enter the byte values therein into an __emit directive. Parameters are stored in ascending order left to right, starting at either BP+4 (in tiny, small, or compact model) or BP+6 (medium, large, or huge). Local variables are stored at addresses below BP.
When using Turbo Pascal, it's possible to use a handy program called "inline assembler" to convert assembly-language source into a Turbo Pascal literal-code directive. Turbo Pascal's directive is formatted differently from C's (I like Pascal's better) and can accommodate labels in ways Turbo C's cannot. Still, using __emit may have far less impact on build times than trying to use inline assembly code.
I have only a compiled binary code (.hex) of pic microcontroller,how can i convert it to code line in mikroc in order to see the instruction of program?
When it's compiled, it is machine code and there's no (automatic) way of translating machine code to C. You can get a readable version of the code, assembly, using a disassembler for your target CPU. This of course requires you learning your CPU's assembly language.
I compiled a C program (which has some assembly language instructions) like this.
TCC -Emasm.exe protect.c
It gives an error Unable to execute masm.exe.
What should I do or where can I find masm.exe?
You need to get microsoft assembly compiler, which is called masm.
I'd like to call assembly (specifically MIPS) code from my C program and call the C back from the assembly.
I've decided on the GNU GCC as my compiler, (I am also guessing I need an emulator?)
I'm on a x86 Win 7 machine.
There are some things that are very unclear to me how this can/should work out.
If MIPS will be using a load-store archi with 32 regs and the C will continue to use a register memory archi because I'm on x86?
Now that I want to call mips assembly instead of x86 assembly, can/do I still use asm() ?
If MIPS uses more registers than C, will I be able to access those registers from my C code?
Can anyone help me out with this, perhaps by pointing out where I could learn this bit of sorcery?
Thanks
Disclaimer: I am working on a verification of self modifying code project for credit in school, and this code is going to be used as an example, but I am not getting any credit for this code.
The most common MIPS calling convention is described here. The easiest way to write a C-callable assembly routine is to write a skeleton for the routine in C, and then copy the assembly code output from the compiler into your assembly source (use gcc's -S option). Say you want to call an assembler function defined in C as int foo(int a, int b). You would write a simple version of that function in C. For example, put the following into foo.c:
int foo(int a, int b) {
return a+b; // some simple code to access all arguments and the return value
}
Then you would compile that function using a MIPS cross compiler (see below) using the -S and the -O0 option to gcc which will produce a text output file foo.S giving you MIPS assembler source code to access the arguments for function foo and showing you where to put the return value. Simply copy that source file into your own assembler source, and add the assembler calculations you need to compute foo.
Calling C from assembly is straightforward once you have calling in the other direction figured out.
You can download a free MIPS gcc cross compiler tool chain from Mentor Graphics (formerly Codesourcery).
You can download a free, fully functional (it boots and runs Linux) MIPS simulator from here. Don't use SPIM or MARS, since they do not completely model the MIPS architecture.