Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Welcome to the new platform of Programmer's Heaven! We apologize for the inconvenience caused, if you visited us from a broken link of the previous version. The main reason to move to a new platform is to provide more effective and collaborative experience to you all. Please feel free to experience the new platform and use its exciting features. Contact us for any issue that you need to get clarified. We are more than happy to help you.

Looking for a compiler

Ptr_082004Ptr_082004 Posts: 31Member
i got started in asm on an Hp49g and Masd (the compiler on it) used a different syntax.

i.e.
ax=bx instead of mov ax, bx
ax+123 instead of add ax, 0beefh ( ax+123 is short for ax=ax+123)
?ax=56 instead of cmp ax, 56

Does anyone know of a x86 compiler that allows that syntax? As you can see it's much shorter and more understandable ( statments instead of commands allow you know that ax=123 rather than figuring out that ax will equal 123 after a 'mov ax, 123' command

Thanks



Comments

  • shaolin007shaolin007 Posts: 1,018Member
    : i got started in asm on an Hp49g and Masd (the compiler on it) used a different syntax.
    :
    : i.e.
    : ax=bx instead of mov ax, bx
    : ax+123 instead of add ax, 0beefh ( ax+123 is short for ax=ax+123)
    : ?ax=56 instead of cmp ax, 56
    :
    : Does anyone know of a x86 compiler that allows that syntax? As you can see it's much shorter and more understandable ( statments instead of commands allow you know that ax=123 rather than figuring out that ax will equal 123 after a 'mov ax, 123' command
    :
    : Thanks
    :
    [green]
    To me the Intel syntax is easy to follow, but then again it is the 1st syntax I actually learned.

    [code]

    movb $20, %ax

    This would seem easier for some people even though I don't prefer the AT&T style syntax.

    [/code]

    As to your question, I don't know of any x86 assembler with that type of syntax.
    [/green]

  • Ptr_082004Ptr_082004 Posts: 31Member
    Never mind, I just finished some code that would translate from the Hp 49g syntax to normal intel

    Thanks

  • Johnny13Johnny13 Posts: 128Member
    : : Does anyone know of a x86 compiler that allows that syntax? As you can see it's much shorter and more understandable ( statments instead of commands allow you know that ax=123 rather than figuring out that ax will equal 123 after a 'mov ax, 123' command
    : :
    : : Thanks
    : :
    : [green]
    : To me the Intel syntax is easy to follow, but then again it is the 1st syntax I actually learned.
    :
    : As to your question, I don't know of any x86 assembler with that type of syntax.[/green]

    [purple]According to CodePedia...
    A compiler convert high level source code to binary executables.
    An assembler convert low level [italic]mnemonic statements[/italic] to binary executables which produce faster code.[/purple]

    [green]"this is the x86 assembly board and not C. My C is very rusty and I haven't programmed in C in more than a year or two."[/green] http://pheaven.com/c/MsgBoard/read.asp?Board=1&MsgID=277462
Sign In or Register to comment.