Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/11/30/06:48:17
At 03:50 PM 11/29/99 , you wrote:
>>No, it isn't. That '99' is decimal, I think, i.e. it's the code found
>at address 0x63 in the disassembled listing, and that code is
>
> 63: 8a 21 movb (%ecx),%ah
>I.e., it chose %ecx for %3. But that's *wrong*. It shouldn't have done
>that, as %ch which is explicitly used is part of %ecx, and thus %ecx
>is not available for holding an input/output expression.
>
>So it looks like putting '%ch' into the output register list of that asm
>block was not enough. Whole %ecx will have to be put there... I don't
>know the exact syntax, though...
Ahhhh. So finally we are getting somewhere. Thanks a lot.
The problems are therefore related to the patches that make
the inline asm compile with gcc 2.95.
Tony
- Raw text -