Whats a good resource for learning assembly? Not that high level assembly shit. Almost all the books I have read are geared towards reverse engineering, which I understand.
But is there a reasource for actual programming? I know the Intel manuals are great, and I always consult them. Just wondering how OS developer wizards like the schizo Terry know about it so much.
>>54360617
wew
>Pick a language, preferably an easy to understand one such as ARM or MIPS.
>Pull up a command sheet.
>Write Program.
>Run the program on an emulator.
>???
>Profit.
MIPS emulator: http://courses.missouristate.edu/KenVollmar/mars/
MIPS command list: http://www.mrc.uidaho.edu/mrc/people/jff/digital/MIPSir.html
>>54360905
OP knows the instruction set, what he doesn't know is how to write good assembly code
>>54360617
What the other guy said, except make the emulator using SDL for high-tier memeage
use this
http://www.drpaulcarter.com/pcasm/
now fuck off
just use C?
i'd think the only ones who use asm at this point are creating the instruction sets themselves or are reverse engineering something.
C code will have higher optimized assembly than anything you could hand write.
>>54360617
Joseph Cavanagh - X86 Assembly Language and C Fundamentals
Kip Irvine - Assembly Language for x86 Processors
Richard Detmer - Introduction to 80x86 Assembly Language and Computer Architecture
>>54360617
I can list some sites I used while studying for my software infrastructure course (mostly x86)
Asm x86: http://www.tutorialspoint.com/assembly_programming/index.htm
x86 reference (I found it to be better than Intel's one): http://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/
Os development in general: http://wiki.osdev.org/Main_Page
http://www.brokenthorn.com/Resources/OSDev5.html
Interrupts: http://stanislavs.org/helppc/idx_interrupt.html
http://webpages.charter.net/danrollins/techhelp/0095.HTM
>>54360617
Please tell me afor loopis what should be used, with a += inside. Otherwise, I'm quitting CS.
>>54361098
>C code will have higher optimized assembly than anything you could hand write.
Used to be the other way around before the x86-64 instruction set became ginormous.
>>54361447
bit shifts should be used, I think
>multiplier too large
How can you even make it through high school without learning how to multiply and divide?
And no, a for loop that adds numbers together is not a good solution either.
>>54361447
multiplication is shift and add, division is shift and subtract.
Didn't you learn about long multiplication / division in school?
If you study CS, you know there at least must be a better way.
Should It really take more time to compute the product of two large numbers than two small?
What if it is floating point numbers?
>>54360617
1. get an atmel ATmega16 (it's a chip) with some stuff (a few blinky-blinkys and a pew-pew-sound-chip).
2. get Atmel Studio (a.k.a. AVM studio)
3. read the chip instruction set
4. get some examples from the interwebs (loop, timer and so on) and study it
5. try to play arround with it, come back her and post your results
6. congrats, you is now a haxx0r !!1!
>>54361284
>>54361396
OP here, thanks guys.
>>54361447product = a / (1 / b)
:^)
A for loop would break if b (or whichever you use for the range) isn't a positive integer in addition to taking longer the larger the numbers; and a solution to truncate decimals and apply them separately would be highly inefficient.
>>54361447
I think that's what they want you to do. But they really should have been more clear about using a loop to do it.
Otherwise, you could just do:a / (1 / b)
