what kind of code is this?

[echy]

what kind of code is this? is it c++? 

can you guys give me a little more information about it?

[echy]

i posted it, didn"t realize 

[NumLock21]

It's RGB code.

[FAQBytes]

Is there a header anywhere? From here it just looks like assembly.

[theklax]

I'm guessing assembly, but I can tell for a fact it isn't C++

[LtStaffel]

11 hours ago, Nicholatian said:

It’s x86 Assembly. 32-bit.

I see some "AX" so it's doing some 16bit operations too.

[Mira Yurizaki]

It's x86 assembly. The register names and the register to memory operations are a huge hint.

[Karim66y]

By the way i see  it's 8086 assembly program but i'm not sure cuz EAX register is 64 bit as i remember or possiably 32 bit which is not availble in 8086 family of cpu.

Damm i miss the old days when registers were 16 bits

[straight_stewie]

24 minutes ago, Karim66y said:

By the way i see  it's 8086 assembly program but i'm not sure cuz EAX register is 64 bit as i remember or possiably 32 bit which is not availble in 8086 family of cpu.

See Above (or rather below now):

15 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

It's x86 assembly. The register names and the register to memory operations are a huge hint.

 

25 minutes ago, Karim66y said:

Damm i miss the old days when registers were 16 bits

The modern x86 register file (atleast the portion concerning general purpose registers) is based on the idea that two 8 bit registers can be combined to make a single 16 bit register, and that magic can turn a single 16 bit register into a single 32 bit register. The breakdown works as follows:

8x8 bit registers: (H stands for High Order Bits, L stands for Low Order Bits, all other letters are names)

• AH
• AL
• BH
• BL
• CH
• CL
• DH
• DL

4x16 bit registers: (X stands for Pair, because each of these involves combining the 8 bit H and L registers of a single name)

• AX
• BX
• CX
• DX

4x32 bit registers: (The E stands for Extended, which is an indication as to how the magic works)

• EAX
• EBX
• ECX
• EDX

[Karim66y]

36 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

See Above (or rather below now):

 

The modern x86 register file (atleast the portion concerning general purpose registers) is based on the idea that two 8 bit registers can be combined to make a single 16 bit register, and that magic can turn a single 16 bit register into a single 32 bit register. The breakdown works as follows:

8x8 bit registers: (H stands for High Order Bits, L stands for Low Order Bits, all other letters are names)

• AH
• AL
• BH
• BL
• CH
• CL
• DH
• DL

4x16 bit registers: (X stands for Pair, because each of these involves combining the 8 bit H and L registers of a single name)

• AX
• BX
• CX
• DX

4x32 bit registers: (The E stands for Extended, which is an indication as to how the magic works)

• EAX
• EBX
• ECX
• EDX

You are right,Accuatly i know that cuz we've had 6 cources of cpu Arc and Org back in the day when i was a freshman in Compute enginering.

The thing i hate most getting data between 2 different size registers (i know i know don't kill me just call them registers) and also when you write the hole program then you figure out you forgot one instruction and you have to rewrite the hole program just cuz you messed up jump instructions addresses along side with every thing LoL it was like touture

 

[Unimportant]

9 hours ago, Karim66y said:

Damm i miss the old days when registers were 16 bits

Really? That implies you miss the segment:offset memory model that came with it ? (to allow addressing more memory then the 64K 16bit would allow). No thanks.

[Mira Yurizaki]

6 hours ago, Unimportant said:

Really? That implies you miss the segment:offset memory model that came with it ? (to allow addressing more memory then the 64K 16bit would allow). No thanks.

x86 in general is weird. I'm surprised we got as far as we did with it.

 

When I had to dabble in ARM assembly, I kind of liked it.

[straight_stewie]

11 hours ago, Unimportant said:

Really? That implies you miss the segment:offset memory model that came with it ? (to allow addressing more memory then the 64K 16bit would allow). No thanks.

Ummm, they still use that in certain cases don't they? 

[Unimportant]

3 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Ummm, they still use that in certain cases don't they? 

No, It was called 'real mode' and has not been used since the onset of true 32-bit protected mode OS'es. The segment registers simply hold a index into the segment descriptor table in protected mode, it can be seen as a flat memory model.

[Unimportant]

15 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

x86 in general is weird. I'm surprised we got as far as we did with it.

The price of backward compatibility. One bad design decision or bug and they have to keep emulating that behavior forever to maintain backward compatibility. On the other hand, it's exactly that backward compatibility that made x86 the dominant architecture (imo), especially in the early days. So, in a way, x86's weirdness is one of the reasons it got so far as it did.

[straight_stewie]

15 hours ago, Unimportant said:

The price of backward compatibility. One bad design decision or bug and they have to keep emulating that behavior forever to maintain backward compatibility. On the other hand, it's exactly that backward compatibility that made x86 the dominant architecture (imo), especially in the early days. So, in a way, x86's weirdness is one of the reasons it got so far as it did.

I've thought about that more than a few times. It's almost pointless too, because they add instructions as they go along, so the backwards compatibility is one directional, and not even fully complete. It only attempts to guarantee that old software will run on new hardware, but try installing DOS on a new processor. Even if you build your own mobo/components such that all of the interfaces that DOS was designed for exist as the OS expects them too, I highly doubt it would work. Overtime Intel has changed things enough that certain things would break.