Why is the assembly code generate by hello world in C not having a .code segment nor model tiny like x86 assembly does?

user_13457082 0
Viewed 125

I'm learning assembly for 80x86 this semester. A typical asm file I write looks something like

.model tiny
.486
.data
#initializations
.code
.startup
#actual code
.exit
end

I was expecting a similar format when I created a .s file for a simple hello world. But I don't see any of the segments with their proper names and it's all very different. I compile using g++ -S -O0 hello.c

Why is the assembly for c so different than the assembly they make us write in class? Is the assembly I'm learning used by a different programming language? If I want to get the assembly version (that I'm used to) of hello world from some higher-level code, how do I do that?

x86 assembly gcc c
1 Answers

The code does not match your command line. That is neither C (file name) nor C++ code (command line). That is assembly language.

Assembly language varies by tool (masm, tasm, nasm, gas, etc), and is not expected to be compatible nor standard in any way. Not talking about just intel vs at&t, all of the code, and this applies to all targets not just x86, easily seen with ARM and others.

You should try to use the assembler not a C nor C++ compiler as that creates yet another assembly language even though gcc for example will pass the assembly language on to gas it can pre-process it through the C preprocessor creating yet another programming language that is incompatible with the gnu assembler it is fed to.

x86 is the last if ever assembly language/instruction set you want to learn, if you are going to learn it then starting with the 8086/88 is IMO the preferred way, much more understandable despite the nuances. Since this appears to be a class you are stuck with this ISA and cannot chose a better first instruction set. (first, second, third...)

Very much within the x86 world, but also for any other target, expect that the language is incompatible between tools and if it happens to work or mostly work that is a bonus. Likewise there is no reason to assume that any tool will have a "masm compatible" or other mode, simply stating intel vs at&t is only a fraction of the language problem and is in no way expected to make the code port between tools.

Re-write the code for the assembly language used for the assembler is the bottom line.

user_160070
Related