Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.lang.asm.x86    |    Ahh, the lost art of x86 assembly    |    4,675 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 3,701 of 4,675    |
|    James Harris to All    |
|    Re: String literals in asm source code    |
|    22 Dec 18 20:39:36    |
      From: james.harris.1@nospicedham.gmail.com              On 21/12/2018 22:07, JJ wrote:       > On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 19:49:50 +0000, James Harris wrote:       >> What's the most readable way to include string literals in asm source code?              ...              >> Option 2       >> ========       >>       >> To avoid a large separation between def and use one could temporarily       >> drop to the data section as needed in the middle of other code (I'll use       >> nops to indicate other executable code).       >>       >> nop       >> nop       >> nop       >> section .data       >> msg_started: db "Operation started", 0       >> section .text       >> mov ebx, msg_started       >>       >> The downside of that is it is arguably harder to read (and doesn't deal       >> with duplicate strings well).       >       > IMO, that's quite a useful layout but, what if there are other parts of the       > source code which need to be laid out like that? Does the compiler allows       > multiple section declarations with the same section name?              Yes, the assembler will allow multiple trips into various sections.                     >       >> Option 3       >> ========       >>       >> Or, maybe a macro could effect option 2 - something like the following.       >> (This is illustrative, not tested code.)       >>       >> mov ebx, string_literal(db "Operation started", 0)       >>       >> Of course, code layout is not a major issue but it is one of       >> convenience; and readability is important. So I wondered what other       >> people do to incorporate strings in code. What have you found to be the       >> most readable and easiest to work with?       >       > I don't think macros can be used using that kind of syntax for this purpose.       > While it may be possible using the proper syntax, it's basically still the       > same as Option 2, just simpler. And with the same problem.       >              You are right, a different syntax would be needed. I'll post separately       about using macros because they are not working for me.              --       James Harris              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca