Where Can I get a free, quality Assembler, and How do I use it?

The answer is simple, the Free Software Foundations Gnu ASsembler (GAS). Avalible at http://www.fsf.org. Here's a tutorail on how to use it:

Linux Assembly HOWTO
Konstantin Boldyshev <mailto:konst@linuxassembly.org> and
Francois-Rene Rideau <mailto:fare@tunes.org>
v0.5l, August 23, 2000

This is the Linux Assembly HOWTO. This document describes how to pro¡
gram in assembly language using FREE programming tools, focusing on
development for or from the Linux Operating System, mostly on IA-32
(i386) platform. Included material may or may not be applicable to
other hardware and/or software platforms. Contributions about them
are gladly accepted. Keywords: assembly, assembler, asm, inline asm,
macroprocessor, preprocessor, 32-bit, IA-32, i386, x86, nasm, gas,
as86, OS, kernel, system, libc, system call, interrupt, small, fast,
embedded, hardware, port
______________________________________________________________________

Table of Contents



1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Legal Blurb
1.2 Foreword
1.3 Contributions
1.4 Credits
1.5 History

2. DO YOU NEED ASSEMBLY?

2.1 Pros and Cons
2.1.1 The advantages of Assembly
2.1.2 The disadvantages of Assembly
2.1.3 Assessment
2.2 How to NOT use Assembly
2.2.1 General procedure to achieve efficient code
2.2.2 Languages with optimizing compilers
2.2.3 General procedure to speed your code up
2.2.4 Inspecting compiler-generated code
2.3 Linux and assembly

3. ASSEMBLERS

3.1 GCC Inline Assembly
3.1.1 Where to find GCC
3.1.2 Where to find docs for GCC Inline Asm
3.1.3 Invoking GCC to build proper inline assembly code
3.2 GAS
3.2.1 Where to find it
3.2.2 What is this AT&T syntax
3.2.3 16-bit mode
3.2.4 GASP
3.3 NASM
3.3.1 Where to find NASM
3.3.2 What it does
3.4 AS86
3.4.1 Where to get AS86
3.4.2 How to invoke the assembler?
3.4.3 Where to find docs
3.4.4 What if I can't compile Linux anymore with this new version ?
3.5 OTHER ASSEMBLERS
3.5.1 Win32Forth assembler
3.5.2 TDASM
3.5.3 Terse
3.5.4 HLA
3.5.5 TALC
3.5.6 Non-free and/or Non-32bit x86 assemblers.

4. METAPROGRAMMING/MACROPROCESSING

4.1 What's integrated into the above
4.1.1 GCC
4.1.2 GAS
4.1.3 GASP
4.1.4 NASM
4.1.5 AS86
4.1.6 OTHER ASSEMBLERS
4.2 External Filters
4.2.1 CPP
4.2.2 M4
4.2.3 Macroprocessing with your own filter
4.2.4 Metaprogramming
4.2.4.1 Backends from compilers
4.2.4.2 The New-Jersey Machine-Code Toolkit
4.2.4.3 TUNES

5. CALLING CONVENTIONS

5.1 Linux
5.1.1 Linking to GCC
5.1.2 ELF vs a.out problems
5.1.3 Direct Linux syscalls
5.1.4 Hardware I/O under Linux
5.1.5 Accessing 16-bit drivers from Linux/i386
5.2 DOS
5.3 Windows and Co.
5.4 Your own OS

6. QUICK START

6.1 Tools you need
6.2 Hello, world!
6.2.1 NASM (hello.asm)
6.2.2 GAS (hello.S)
6.3 Producing object code
6.4 Producing executable

7. RESOURCES

7.1 Mailing list
7.2 Frequently asked questions (with answers)
7.2.1 How do I do graphics programming in Linux?
7.2.2 How do I debug pure assembly code under Linux?
7.2.3 Any other useful debugging tools?
7.2.4 How do I access BIOS functions from Linux (BSD, BeOS, etc)?


______________________________________________________________________

1. INTRODUCTION


You can skip this section if you are familiar with HOWTOs, or just
hate to read all this assembly-nonrelated crap.


1.1. Legal Blurb

Copyright ¬ 1999-2000 Konstantin Boldyshev.

Copyright ¬ 1996-1999 Francois-Rene Rideau.

This document may be distributed only subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in the LDP License
<http://linuxdoc.org/COPYRIGHT.html>. It may be reproduced and
distributed in whole or in part, in any medium physical or electronic,
provided that this license notice is displayed in the reproduction.
Commercial redistribution is permitted and encouraged.

All modified documents, including translations, anthologies, and
partial documents, must meet the following requirements:


+ The modified version must be labeled as such

+ The person making the modifications must be identified

+ Acknowledgement of the original author must be retained

+ The location of the original unmodified document be identified


+ The original author's (or authors') name(s) may not be used to
assert or imply endorsement of the resulting document without the
original author's (or authors') permission

The most recent official version of this document is available from
Linux Assembly <http://linuxassembly.org> and LDP
<http://linuxdoc.org> sites. If you are reading a few-months-old
copy, consider checking urls above for a new version.


1.2. Foreword

This document aims answering questions of those who program or want to
program 32-bit x86 assembly using free software
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/>, particularly under the Linux
operating system. At many places, Universal Resource Locators (URL)
are given for some software or documentation repository. This
document also points to other documents about non-free, non-x86, or
non-32-bit assemblers, although this is not its primary goal. Also
note that there are FAQs and docs about programming on your favorite
platform (whatever it is), which you should consult for platform-
specific issues, not related directly to assembly programming.

Because the main interest of assembly programming is to build the guts
of operating systems, interpreters, compilers, and games, where C
compiler fails to provide the needed expressiveness (performance is
more and more seldom as issue), we are focusing on development of such
kind of software.

If you don't know what free software is, please do read carefully the
GNU General Public License, which is used in a lot of free software,
and is the model for most of their licenses. It generally comes in a
file named COPYING (or COPYING.LIB). Literature from the FSF
<http://www.fsf.org> (free software foundation) might help you, too.
Particularly, the interesting feature of free software is that it
comes with source code which you can consult and correct, or sometimes
even borrow from. Read your particular license carefully and do
comply to it.


1.3. Contributions

This is an interactively evolving document: you are especially invited
to ask questions, to answer questions, to correct given answers, to
give pointers to new software, to point the current maintainer to bugs
or deficiencies in the pages. In one word, contribute!

To contribute, please contact the Assembly-HOWTO maintainer. At the
time of this writing, it is Konstantin Boldyshev
<mailto:konst@linuxassembly.org> and no more Francois-Rene Rideau
<mailto:fare@tunes.org>. I (Fare) had been looking for some time for
a serious hacker to replace me as maintainer of this document, and am
pleased to announce Konstantin as my worthy successor.


1.4. Credits

I would like to thank following persons, by order of appearance:

+ Linus Torvalds <mailto:buried.alive@in.mail> for Linux

+ Bruce Evans <mailto:bde@zeta.org.au> for bcc from which as86 is
extracted

+ Simon Tatham <mailto:anakin@pobox.com> and Julian Hall
<mailto:jules@earthcorp.com> for NASM
+ Greg Hankins <mailto:gregh@metalab.unc.edu> and now Tim Bynum
<mailto:linux-howto@metalab.unc.edu> for maintaining HOWTOs

+ Raymond Moon <mailto:raymoon@moonware.dgsys.com> for his FAQ

+ Eric Dumas <mailto:dumas@linux.eu.org> for his translation of the
mini-HOWTO into French (sad thing for the original author to be
French and write in English)

+ Paul Anderson <mailtoaul@geeky1.ebtech.net> and Rahim Azizarab
<mailto:rahim@megsinet.net> for helping me, if not for taking over
the HOWTO.

+ Marc Lehman <mailtocg@goof.com> for his insight on GCC
invocation.

+ Abhijit Menon-Sen <mailto:ams@wiw.org> for helping me figure out
the argument passing convention

+ All the people who have contributed ideas, answers, remarks, and
moral support.


1.5. History

Each version includes a few fixes and minor corrections, that need not
to be repeatedly mentioned every time.

Version 0.5l 23 Aug 2000
Added TDASM, updates on NASM


Version 0.5k 11 Jul 2000
Few additions to FAQ


Version 0.5j 14 Jun 2000
Complete rearrangement of INTRODUCTION and RESOURCES; FAQ added
to RESOURCES, misc cleanups and additions (and more to come)


Version 0.5i 04 May 2000
Added HLA, TALC; rearrangements in RESOURCES, QUICK START,
ASSEMBLERS; few new pointers


Version 0.5h 09 Apr 2000
finally managed to state LDP license on document, new resources
added, misc fixes


Version 0.5g 26 Mar 2000
new resources on different CPUs


Version 0.5f 02 Mar 2000
new resources, misc corrections


Version 0.5e 10 Feb 2000
url updates, changes in GAS example


Version 0.5d 01 Feb 2000
RESOURCES (former POINTERS) section completely redone, various
url updates.
Version 0.5c 05 Dec 1999
New pointers, updates and some rearrangements. Rewrite of sgml
source.


Version 0.5b 19 Sep 1999
Discussion about libc or not libc continues. New web pointers
and and overall updates.


Version 0.5a 01 Aug 1999
"QUICK START" section rearranged, added GAS example. Several
new web pointers.


Version 0.5 25 July 1999
GAS has 16-bit mode. New maintainer (at last): Konstantin
Boldyshev. Discussion about libc or not libc. Added section
"QUICK START" with examples of using assembly.


Version 0.4q 22 June 1999
process argument passing (argc,argv,environ) in assembly. This
is yet another "last release by Fare before new maintainer takes
over". Nobody knows who might be the new maintainer.


Version 0.4p 6 June 1999
clean up and updates.


Version 0.4o 1 December 1998
*


Version 0.4m 23 March 1998
corrections about gcc invocation


Version 0.4l 16 November 1997
release for LSL 6th edition.


Version 0.4k 19 October 1997
*


Version 0.4j 7 September 1997
*


Version 0.4i 17 July 1997
info on 16-bit mode access from Linux.


Version 0.4h 19 Jun 1997
still more on "how not to use assembly"; updates on NASM, GAS.


Version 0.4g 30 Mar 1997
*


Version 0.4f 20 Mar 1997
*

Version 0.4e 13 Mar 1997
Release for DrLinux


Version 0.4d 28 Feb 1997
Vapor announce of a new Assembly-HOWTO maintainer.


Version 0.4c 9 Feb 1997
Added section "DO YOU NEED ASSEMBLY?"


Version 0.4b 3 Feb 1997
NASM moved: now is before AS86


Version 0.4a 20 Jan 1997
CREDITS section added


Version 0.4 20 Jan 1997
first release of the HOWTO as such.


Version 0.4pre1 13 Jan 1997
text mini-HOWTO transformed into a full linuxdoc-sgml HOWTO, to
see what the SGML tools are like.


Version 0.3l 11 Jan 1997
*


Version 0.3k 19 Dec 1996
What? I had forgotten to point to terse???


Version 0.3j 24 Nov 1996
point to French translated version


Version 0.3i 16 Nov 1996
NASM is getting pretty slick


Version 0.3h 6 Nov 1996
more about cross-compiling -- See on sunsite: devel/msdos/


Version 0.3g 2 Nov 1996
Created the History. Added pointers in cross-compiling section.
Added section about I/O programming under Linux (particularly
video).


Version 0.3f 17 Oct 1996
*


Version 0.3c 15 Jun 1996
*


Version 0.2 04 May 1996
*

Version 0.1 23 Apr 1996
Francois-Rene "Fare" Rideau <fare@tunes.org> creates and
publishes the first mini-HOWTO, because "I'm sick of answering
ever the same questions on comp.lang.asm.x86"



2. DO YOU NEED ASSEMBLY?

Well, I wouldn't want to interfere with what you're doing, but here is
some advice from hard-earned experience.



2.1. Pros and Cons



2.1.1. The advantages of Assembly

Assembly can express very low-level things:

+ you can access machine-dependent registers and I/O.

+ you can control the exact behavior of code in critical sections
that might otherwise involve deadlock between multiple software
threads or hardware devices.

+ you can break the conventions of your usual compiler, which might
allow some optimizations (like temporarily breaking rules about
memory allocation, threading, calling conventions, etc).

+ you can build interfaces between code fragments using incompatible
such conventions (e.g. produced by different compilers, or
separated by a low-level interface).

+ you can get access to unusual programming modes of your processor
(e.g. 16 bit mode to interface startup, firmware, or legacy code on
Intel PCs)

+ you can produce reasonably fast code for tight loops to cope with a
bad non-optimizing compiler (but then, there are free optimizing
compilers available!)

+ you can produce hand-optimized code perfectly tuned for your
particular hardware setup, though not to anyone else's.

+ you can write some code for your new language's optimizing compiler
(that's something few will ever do, and even they, not often).



2.1.2. The disadvantages of Assembly

Assembly is a very low-level language (the lowest above hand-coding
the binary instruction patterns). This means

+ it's long and tedious to write initially,

+ it's quite bug-prone,


+ your bugs can be very difficult to chase,

+ it's very difficult to understand and modify, i.e. to maintain.

+ the result is very non-portable to other architectures, existing or
future,

+ your code will be optimized only for a certain implementation of a
same architecture: for instance, among Intel-compatible platforms,
each CPU design and its variations (relative latency, throughput,
and capacity, of processing units, caches, RAM, bus, disks,
presence of FPU, MMX, 3DNOW, SIMD extensions, etc) implies
potentially completely different optimization techniques. CPU
designs already include: Intel 386, 486, Pentium, PPro, Pentium II,
Pentium III; Cyrix 5x86, 6x86; AMD K5, K6 (K6-2, K6-III), K7
(Athlon). New designs keep popping up, so don't expect either this
listing or your code to be up-to-date.

+ you spend more time on a few details, and can't focus on small and
large algorithmic design, that are known to bring the largest part
of the speed up. [e.g. you might spend some time building very
fast list/array manipulation primitives in assembly; only a hash
table would have sped up your program much more; or, in another
context, a binary tree; or some high-level structure distributed
over a cluster of CPUs]

+ a small change in algorithmic design might completely invalidate
all your existing assembly code. So that either you're ready (and
able) to rewrite it all, or you're tied to a particular algorithmic
design;

+ On code that ain't too far from what's in standard benchmarks,
commercial optimizing compilers outperform hand-coded assembly
(well, that's less true on the x86 architecture than on RISC
architectures, and perhaps less true for widely available/free
compilers; anyway, for typical C code, GCC is fairly good);

+ And in any case, as says moderator John Levine on comp.compilers
<news:comp.compilers>, "compilers make it a lot easier to use
complex data structures, and compilers don't get bored
halfway through and generate reliably pretty good code." They will
also correctly propagate code transformations throughout the whole
(huge) program when optimizing code between procedures and module
boundaries.



2.1.3. Assessment

All in all, you might find that though using assembly is sometimes
needed, and might even be useful in a few cases where it is not,
you'll want to:

+ minimize the use of assembly code,

+ encapsulate this code in well-defined interfaces

+ have your assembly code automatically generated from patterns
expressed in a higher-level language than assembly (e.g. GCC inline
assembly macros).

+ have automatic tools translate these programs into assembly code

+ have this code be optimized if possible


+ All of the above, i.e. write (an extension to) an optimizing
compiler back-end.

Even in cases when assembly is needed (e.g. OS development), you'll
find that not so much of it is, and that the above principles hold.

See the Linux kernel sources concerning this: as little assembly as
needed, resulting in a fast, reliable, portable, maintainable OS.
Even a successful game like DOOM was almost massively written in C,
with a tiny part only being written in assembly for speed up.



2.2. How to NOT use Assembly



2.2.1. General procedure to achieve efficient code

As says Charles Fiterman on comp.compilers <news:comp.compilers> about
human vs computer-generated assembly code,

" The human should always win and here is why.

+ First the human writes the whole thing in a high level language.

+ Second he profiles it to find the hot spots where it spends its
time.

+ Third he has the compiler produce assembly for those small sections
of code.

+ Fourth he hand tunes them looking for tiny improvements over the
machine generated code.

The human wins because he can use the machine. "



2.2.2. Languages with optimizing compilers

Languages like ObjectiveCAML, SML, CommonLISP, Scheme, ADA, Pascal, C,
C++, among others, all have free optimizing compilers that will
optimize the bulk of your programs, and often do better than hand-
coded assembly even for tight loops, while allowing you to focus on
higher-level details, and without forbidding you to grab a few percent
of extra performance in the above-mentioned way, once you've reached a
stable design. Of course, there are also commercial optimizing
compilers for most of these languages, too!

Some languages have compilers that produce C code, which can be
further optimized by a C compiler: LISP, Scheme, Perl, and many other.
Speed is fairly good.


2.2.3. General procedure to speed your code up

As for speeding code up, you should do it only for parts of a program
that a profiling tool has consistently identified as being a
performance bottleneck.

Hence, if you identify some code portion as being too slow, you should

+ first try to use a better algorithm;


+ then try to compile it rather than interpret it;

+ then try to enable and tweak optimization from your compiler;

+ then give the compiler hints about how to optimize (typing
information in LISP; register usage with GCC; lots of options in
most compilers, etc).

+ then possibly fallback to assembly programming

Finally, before you end up writing assembly, you should inspect
generated code, to check that the problem really is with bad code
generation, as this might really not be the case: compiler-generated
code might be better than what you'd have written, particularly on
modern multi-pipelined architectures! Slow parts of a program might
be intrinsically so. Biggest problems on modern architectures with
fast processors are due to delays from memory access, cache-misses,
TLB-misses, and page-faults; register optimization becomes useless,
and you'll more profitably re-think data structures and threading to
achieve better locality in memory access. Perhaps a completely
different approach to the problem might help, then.



2.2.4. Inspecting compiler-generated code

There are many reasons to inspect compiler-generated assembly code.
Here are what you'll do with such code:

+ check whether generated code can be obviously enhanced with hand-
coded assembly (or by tweaking compiler switches)

+ when that's the case, start from generated code and modify it
instead of starting from scratch

+ more generally, use generated code as stubs to modify, which at
least gets right the way your assembly routines interface to the
external world

+ track down bugs in your compiler (hopefully rarer)

The standard way to have assembly code be generated is to invoke your
compiler with the -S flag. This works with most Unix compilers,
including the GNU C Compiler (GCC), but YMMV. As for GCC, it will
produce more understandable assembly code with the -fverbose-asm
command-line option. Of course, if you want to get good assembly
code, don't forget your usual optimization options and hints!



2.3. Linux and assembly

In general case you don't need to use assembly language in Linux
programming. Unlike DOS, you do not have to write Linux drivers in
assembly (well, actually you can do it if you really want). And with
modern optimizing compilers, if you care of speed optimization for
different CPU's, it's much simpler to write in C. However, if you're
reading this, you might have some reason to use assembly instead of
C/C++.

You may need to use assembly, or you may want to use assembly.
Shortly, main practical reasons why you may need to get into Linux
assembly are small code and libc independence. Non-practical (and
most often) reason is being just an old crazy hacker, who has twenty
years old habit of doing everything in assembly language.

Also, if you're porting Linux to some embedded hardware you can be
quite short at size of whole system: you need to fit kernel, libc and
all that stuff of (file|find|text|sh|etc.) utils into several hundreds
of kilobytes, and every kilobyte costs much. So, one of the ways
you've got is to rewrite some (or all) parts of system in assembly,
and this will really save you a lot of space. For instance, a simple
httpd written in assembly can take less than 600 bytes; you can fit a
webserver, consisting of kernel and httpd, in 400 KB or less... Think
about it.


3. ASSEMBLERS



3.1. GCC Inline Assembly

The well-known GNU C/C++ Compiler (GCC), an optimizing 32-bit compiler
at the heart of the GNU project, supports the x86 architecture quite
well, and includes the ability to insert assembly code in C programs,
in such a way that register allocation can be either specified or left
to GCC. GCC works on most available platforms, notably Linux, *BSD,
VSTa, OS/2, *DOS, Win*, etc.


3.1.1. Where to find GCC

The original GCC site is the GNU FTP site
<ftp://prep.ai.mit.edu/pub/gnu/gcc/> together with all released
application software from the GNU project. Linux-configured and
precompiled versions can be found in
<ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/Linux/GCC/> There are a lot of FTP mirrors
of both sites, everywhere around the world, as well as CD-ROM copies.

GCC development has split into two branches some time ago (GCC 2.8 and
EGCS), but they merged back, and current GCC webpage is
<http://gcc.gnu.org>.

Sources adapted to your favorite OS and precompiled binaries should be
found at your usual FTP sites.

For most popular DOS port of GCC is named DJGPP, and can be found in
directories of such name in FTP sites. See
<http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/>.

There are two Win32 GCC ports: cygwin
<http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/> and mingw
<http://www.mingw.org>

There is also a port of GCC to OS/2 named EMX, that also works under
DOS, and includes lots of unix-emulation library routines. See around
the following site: <ftp://ftp-os2.cdrom.com/pub/os2/emx09c/>.



3.1.2. Where to find docs for GCC Inline Asm

The documentation of GCC includes documentation files in TeXinfo
format. You can compile them with TeX and print then result, or
convert them to .info, and browse them with emacs, or convert them to
.html, or nearly whatever you like; convert (with the right tools) to
whatever you like, or just read as is. The .info files are generally
found on any good installation for GCC.

The right section to look for is C Extensions::Extended Asm::

Section Invoking GCC::Submodel Options::i386 Options:: might help too.
Particularly, it gives the i386 specific constraint names for
registers: abcdSDB correspond to %eax, %ebx, %ecx, %edx, %esi, %edi
and %ebp respectively (no letter for %esp).

The DJGPP Games resource (not only for game hackers) had page
specifically about assembly, but it's down. Its data have nonetheless
been recovered on the DJGPP site <http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/>, that
contains a mine of other useful information:
<http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/doc/brennan/>, and in the DJGPP Quick
ASM Programming Guide <http://www.castle.net/~avly/djasm.html>.


GCC depends on GAS for assembling, and follow its syntax (see below);
do mind that inline asm needs percent characters to be quoted so they
be passed to GAS. See the section about GAS below.

Find lots of useful examples in the linux/include/asm-i386/
subdirectory of the sources for the Linux kernel.



3.1.3. Invoking GCC to build proper inline assembly code

Because assembly routines from the kernel headers (and most likely
your own headers, if you try making your assembly programming as clean
as it is in the linux kernel) are embedded in extern inline functions,
GCC must be invoked with the -O flag (or -O2, -O3, etc), for these
routines to be available. If not, your code may compile, but not link
properly, since it will be looking for non-inlined extern functions in
the libraries against which your program is being linked! Another way
is to link against libraries that include fallback versions of the
routines.

Inline assembly can be disabled with -fno-asm, which will have the
compiler die when using extended inline asm syntax, or else generate
calls to an external function named asm() that the linker can't
resolve. To counter such flag, -fasm restores treatment of the asm
keyword.

More generally, good compile flags for GCC on the x86 platform are

______________________________________________________________________
gcc -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall
______________________________________________________________________



-O2 is the good optimization level in most cases. Optimizing besides
it takes longer, and yields code that is a lot larger, but only a bit
faster; such overoptimization might be useful for tight loops only (if
any), which you may be doing in assembly anyway. In cases when you
need really strong compiler optimization for a few files, do consider
using up to -O6.

-fomit-frame-pointer allows generated code to skip the stupid frame
pointer maintenance, which makes code smaller and faster, and frees a
register for further optimizations. It precludes the easy use of
debugging tools (gdb), but when you use these, you just don't care
about size and speed anymore anyway.

-W -Wall enables all warnings and helps you catch obvious stupid
errors.


You can add some CPU-specific -m486 or such flag so that GCC will
produce code that is more adapted to your precise computer. Note that
modern GCC has -mpentium and such flags (and PGCC
<http://goof.com/pcg/> has even more), whereas GCC 2.7.x and older
versions do not. A good choice of CPU-specific flags should be in the
Linux kernel. Check the TeXinfo documentation of your current GCC
installation for more.

-m386 will help optimize for size, hence also for speed on computers
whose memory is tight and/or loaded, since big programs cause swap,
which more than counters any "optimization" intended by the larger
code. In such settings, it might be useful to stop using C, and use
instead a language that favors code factorization, such as a
functional language and/or FORTH, and use a bytecode- or wordcode-
based implementation.

Note that you can vary code generation flags from file to file, so
performance-critical files will use maximum optimization, whereas
other files will be optimized for size.

To optimize even more, option -mregparm=2 and/or corresponding
function attribute might help, but might pose lots of problems when
linking to foreign code, including libc. There are ways to correctly
declare foreign functions so the right call sequences be generated, or
you might want to recompile the foreign libraries to use the same
register-based calling convention...

Note that you can add make these flags the default by editing file
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/2.7.2.3/specs or wherever that is on your
system (better not add -W -Wall there, though). The exact location of
the GCC specs files on your system can be found by asking gcc -v.



3.2. GAS

GAS is the GNU Assembler, that GCC relies upon.



3.2.1. Where to find it

Find it at the same place where you found GCC, in a package named
binutils.

The latest version is available from HJLu at
<ftp://ftp.varesearch.com/pub/support/hjl/binutils/>.



3.2.2. What is this AT&T syntax

Because GAS was invented to support a 32-bit unix compiler, it uses
standard AT&T syntax, which resembles a lot the syntax for standard
m68k assemblers, and is standard in the UNIX world. This syntax is no
worse, no better than the Intel syntax. It's just different. When
you get used to it, you find it much more regular than the Intel
syntax, though a bit boring.

Here are the major caveats about GAS syntax:

+ Register names are prefixed with %, so that registers are %eax, %dl
and so on, instead of just eax, dl, etc. This makes it possible to
include external C symbols directly in assembly source, without any
risk of confusion, or any need for ugly underscore prefixes.

+ The order of operands is source(s) first, and destination last, as
opposed to the Intel convention of destination first and sources
last. Hence, what in Intel syntax is mov ax,dx (move contents of
register dx into register ax) will be in GAS syntax mov %dx, %ax.

+ The operand length is specified as a suffix to the instruction
name. The suffix is b for (8-bit) byte, w for (16-bit) word, and l
for (32-bit) long. For instance, the correct syntax for the above
instruction would have been movw %dx,%ax. However, gas does not
require strict AT&T syntax, so the suffix is optional when length
can be guessed from register operands, and else defaults to 32-bit
(with a warning).

+ Immediate operands are marked with a $ prefix, as in addl $5,%eax
(add immediate long value 5 to register %eax).

+ No prefix to an operand indicates it is a memory-address; hence
movl $foo,%eax puts the address of variable foo in register %eax,
but movl foo,%eax puts the contents of variable foo in register
%eax.

+ Indexing or indirection is done by enclosing the index register or
indirection memory cell address in parentheses, as in testb
$0x80,17(%ebp) (test the high bit of the byte value at offset 17
from the cell pointed to by %ebp).


A program exists to help you convert programs from TASM syntax to AT&T
syntax. See
<ftp://x2ftp.oulu.fi/pub/msdos/programming/convert/ta2asv08.zip>.
(Since the original x2ftp site is closing (no more?), use a mirror
site <ftp://ftp.lip6.fr/pub/pc/x2ftp/README.mirror_sites>). There
also exists a program for the reverse conversion:
<http://www.multimania.com/placr/a2i.html>.


GAS has comprehensive documentation in TeXinfo format, which comes at
least with the source distribution. Browse extracted .info pages with
Emacs or whatever. There used to be a file named gas.doc or as.doc
around the GAS source package, but it was merged into the TeXinfo
docs. Of course, in case of doubt, the ultimate documentation is the
sources themselves! A section that will particularly interest you is
Machine Dependencies::i386-Dependent::


Again, the sources for Linux (the OS kernel) come in as excellent
examples; see under linux/arch/i386/ the following files: kernel/*.S,
boot/compressed/*.S, mathemu/*.S.

If you are writing kind of a language, a thread package, etc., you
might as well see how other languages (OCaml <http://para.inria.fr/>,
Gforth <http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/gforth.html>, etc.), or thread
packages (QuickThreads, MIT pthreads, LinuxThreads, etc), or whatever,
do it.

Finally, just compiling a C program to assembly might show you the
syntax for the kind of instructions you want. See section ``Do you
need Assembly?' above.



3.2.3. 16-bit mode

The current stable release of binutils (2.9.1.0.25) now fully supports
16-bit mode (registers and addressing) on i386 PCs. Still with its
peculiar AT&T syntax, of course. Use .code16 and .code32 to switch
between assembly modes.

Also, a neat trick used by some (including the oskit authors) is to
have GCC produce code for 16-bit real mode, using an inline assembly
statement asm(".code16\n"). GCC will still emit only 32-bit
addressing modes, but GAS will insert proper 32-bit prefixes for them.



3.2.4. GASP

GASP is the GAS Preprocessor. It adds macros and some nice syntax to
GAS. GASP comes together with GAS in the GNU binutils archive. It
works as a filter, much like cpp and the like. I have no idea on
details, but it comes with its own texinfo documentation, so just
browse them (in .info), print them, grok them. GAS with GASP looks
like a regular macro-assembler to me.



3.3. NASM

The Netwide Assembler project provides cool i386 assembler, written in
C, that should be modular enough to eventually support all known
syntaxes and object formats.


3.3.1. Where to find NASM

<http://nasm.sourceforge.net>

Binary release on your usual metalab mirror in devel/lang/asm/.
Should also be available as .rpm or .deb in your usual RedHat/Debian
distributions' contrib.


3.3.2. What it does

The syntax is Intel-style. Fairly good macroprocessing support is
integrated.

Supported object file formats are bin, aout, coff, elf, as86, (DOS)
obj, win32, (their own format) rdf.

NASM can be used as a backend for the free LCC compiler (support files
included).

Unless you're using BCC as a 16-bit compiler (which is out of scope of
this 32-bit HOWTO), you should definitely use NASM instead of say AS86
or MASM, because it is actively supported online, and runs on all
platforms.

Note: NASM also comes with a disassembler, NDISASM.

Its hand-written parser makes it much faster than GAS, though of
course, it doesn't support three bazillion different architectures.
If you like Intel-style syntax, as opposed to GAS syntax, then it
should be the assembler of choice...

Note: There are ``converters between GAS AT&T and Intel assembler
syntax', which perform conversion in both directions.



3.4. AS86

AS86 is a 80x86 assembler, both 16-bit and 32-bit, part of Bruce
Evans' C Compiler (BCC). It has mostly Intel-syntax, though it
differs slightly as for addressing modes.



3.4.1. Where to get AS86

A completely outdated version of AS86 is distributed by HJLu just to
compile the Linux kernel, in a package named bin86 (current version
0.4), available in any Linux GCC repository. But I advise no one to
use it for anything else but compiling Linux. This version supports
only a hacked minix object file format, which is not supported by the
GNU binutils or anything, and it has a few bugs in 32-bit mode, so you
really should better keep it only for compiling Linux.

The most recent versions by Bruce Evans (bde@zeta.org.au) are
published together with the FreeBSD distribution. Well, they were: I
could not find the sources from distribution 2.1 on Hence, I put
the sources at my place:
<http://www.tunes.org/~fare/files/asm/bcc-95.3.12.src.tgz>

The Linux/8086 (aka ELKS) project is somehow maintaining bcc (though I
don't think they included the 32-bit patches). See around
<http://www.linux.org.uk/ELKS-Home/> (or
<http://www.elks.ecs.soton.ac.uk>) and
<ftp://linux.mit.edu/pub/linux/ELKS/>. I haven't followed these
developments, and would appreciate a reader contributing on this
topic.

Among other things, these more recent versions, unlike HJLu's,
supports Linux GNU a.out format, so you can link you code to Linux
programs, and/or use the usual tools from the GNU binutils package to
manipulate your data. This version can co-exist without any harm with
the previous one (see according question below).

BCC from 12 march 1995 and earlier version has a misfeature that makes
all segment pushing/popping 16-bit, which is quite annoying when
programming in 32-bit mode. I wrote a patch at a time when the TUNES
Project used as86:
<http://www.tunes.org/~fare/files/asm/as86.bcc.patch.gz>. Bruce Evans
accepted this patch, but since as far as I know he hasn't published a
new release of bcc, the ones to ask about integrating it (if not done
yet) are the ELKS developers.



3.4.2. How to invoke the assembler?

Here's the GNU Makefile entry for using bcc to transform .s asm into
both GNU a.out .o object and .l listing:


______________________________________________________________________
%.o %.l: %.s
bcc -3 -G -c -A-d -A-l -A$*.l -o $*.o $<
______________________________________________________________________



Remove the %.l, -A-l, and -A$*.l, if you don't want any listing. If
you want something else than GNU a.out, you can see the docs of bcc
about the other supported formats, and/or use the objcopy utility from
the GNU binutils package.
3.4.3. Where to find docs

The docs are what is included in the bcc package. I salvaged the man
pages that used to be available from the FreeBSD site at
<http://www.tunes.org/~fare/files/asm/bcc-95.3.12.src.tgz>. Maybe
ELKS developers know better. When in doubt, the sources themselves
are often a good docs: it's not very well commented, but the
programming style is straightforward. You might try to see how as86
is used in ELKS or Tunes 0.0.0.25...



3.4.4. What if I can't compile Linux anymore with this new version ?

Linus is buried alive in mail, and since HJLu (official bin86
maintainer) chose to write hacks around an obsolete version of as86
instead of building clean code around the latest version, I don't
think my patch for compiling Linux with a modern as86 has any chance
to be accepted if resubmitted. Now, this shouldn't matter: just keep
your as86 from the bin86 package in /usr/bin/, and let bcc install the
good as86 as /usr/local/libexec/i386/bcc/as where it should be. You
never need explicitly call this "good" as86, because bcc does
everything right, including conversion to Linux a.out, when invoked
with the right options; so assemble files exclusively with bcc as a
frontend, not directly with as86.

Since GAS now supports 16-bit code, and since H. Peter Anvin, well-
known linux hacker, works on NASM, maybe Linux will get rid of AS86,
anyway? Who knows!



3.5. OTHER ASSEMBLERS

These are other non-regular options, in case the previous didn't
satisfy you (why?), that I don't recommend in the usual (?) case, but
that could be quite useful if the assembler must be integrated in the
software you're designing (i.e. an OS or development environment).


3.5.1. Win32Forth assembler

Win32Forth is a free 32-bit ANS FORTH system that successfully runs
under Win32s, Win95, Win/NT. It includes a free 32-bit assembler
(either prefix or postfix syntax) integrated into the reflective FORTH
language. Macro processing is done with the full power of the
reflective language FORTH; however, the only supported input and
output contexts is Win32For itself (no dumping of .obj file, but you
could add that feature yourself, of course). Find it at
<ftp://ftp.forth.org/pub/Forth/Compilers/native/windows/Win32For/>.



3.5.2. TDASM

The Table Driven Assembler (TDASM) is a free portable cross assembler
for any kind of assembly language. It should be possible to use it as
a compiler to any target microprocessor using a table that defines the
compilation process.

It is available from <http://www.penguin.cz/~niki/tdasm/>.



3.5.3. Terse

Terse <http://www.terse.com> is a programming tool that provides THE
most compact assembler syntax for the x86 family! However, it is evil
proprietary software. It is said that there was a project for a free
clone somewhere, that was abandoned after worthless pretenses that the
syntax would be owned by the original author. Thus, if you're looking
for a nifty programming project related to assembly hacking, I invite
you to develop a terse-syntax frontend to NASM, if you like that
syntax.

As an interesting historic remark, on comp.compilers
<news:comp.compilers>, 1999/07/11 19:36:51, the moderator wrote:
"There's no reason that assemblers have to have awful syntax. About
30 years ago I used Niklaus Wirth's PL360, which was basically a S/360
assembler with Algol syntax and a a little syntactic sugar like while
loops that turned into the obvious branches. It really was an
assembler, e.g., you had to write out your expressions with explicit
assignments of values to registers, but it was nice. Wirth used it to
write Algol W, a small fast Algol subset, which was a predecessor to
Pascal. As is so often the case, Algol W was a significant
improvement over many of its successors. -John"


3.5.4. HLA

HLA <http://webster.cs.ucr.edu> is a High Level Assembly language. It
uses a high level language like syntax (similar to Pascal, C/C++, and
other HLLs) for variable declarations, procedure declarations, and
procedure calls. It uses a modified assembly language syntax for the
standard machine instructions. It also provides several high level
language style control structures (if, while, repeat..until, etc.)
that help you write much more readable code.

HLA is free, but runs only under Win32. You need MASM and a 32-bit
version of MS-link, because HLA produces MASM code and uses MASM for
final assembling and linking. However it comes with m2t (MASM to TASM)
post-processor program that converts the HLA MASM output to a form
that will compile under TASM. Unfortunately, NASM is not supported.



3.5.5. TALC

TALC <http://www.cs.cornell.edu/talc/> is another free MASM/Win32
based compiler (however it supports ELF output, does it?).

TAL stands for Typed Assembly Language. It extends traditional
untyped assembly languages with typing annotations, memory management
primitives, and a sound set of typing rules, to guarantee the memory
safety, control flow safety,and type safety of TAL programs.
Moreover, the typing constructs are expressive enough to encode most
source language programming features including records and structures,
arrays, higher-order and polymorphic functions, exceptions, abstract
data types, subtyping, and modules. Just as importantly, TAL is
flexible enough to admit many low-level compiler optimizations.
Consequently, TAL is an ideal target platform for type-directed
compilers that want to produce verifiably safe code for use in secure
mobile code applications or extensible operating system kernels.


3.5.6. Non-free and/or Non-32bit x86 assemblers.

You may find more about them, together with the basics of x86 assembly
programming, in ``Raymond Moon's x86 assembly FAQ'.

Note that all DOS-based assemblers should work inside the Linux DOS
Emulator, as well as other similar emulators, so that if you already
own one, you can still use it inside a real OS. Recent DOS-based
assemblers also support COFF and/or other object file formats that are
supported by the GNU BFD library, so that you can use them together
with your free 32-bit tools, perhaps using GNU objcopy (part of the
binutils) as a conversion filter.



4. METAPROGRAMMING/MACROPROCESSING

Assembly programming is a bore, but for critical parts of programs.

You should use the appropriate tool for the right task, so don't
choose assembly when it's not fit; C, OCaml, perl, Scheme, might be a
better choice for most of your programming.

However, there are cases when these tools do not give a fine enough
control on the machine, and assembly is useful or needed. In those
case, you'll appreciate a system of macroprocessing and
metaprogramming that'll allow recurring patterns to be factored each
into a one indefinitely reusable definition, which allows safer
programming, automatic propagation of pattern modification, etc.
Plain assembler often is not enough, even when one is doing only small
routines to link with C.



4.1. What's integrated into the above


Yes I know this section does not contain much useful up-to-date
information. Feel free to contribute what you discover the hard
way...



4.1.1. GCC

GCC allows (and requires) you to specify register constraints in your
inline assembly code, so the optimizer always know about it; thus,
inline assembly code is really made of patterns, not forcibly exact
code.

Thus, you can make put your assembly into CPP macros, and inline C
functions, so anyone can use it in as any C function/macro. Inline
functions resemble macros very much, but are sometimes cleaner to use.
Beware that in all those cases, code will be duplicated, so only local
labels (of 1: style) should be defined in that asm code. However, a
macro would allow the name for a non local defined label to be passed
as a parameter (or else, you should use additional meta-programming
methods). Also, note that propagating inline asm code will spread
potential bugs in them; so watch out doubly for register constraints
in such inline asm code.

Lastly, the C language itself may be considered as a good abstraction
to assembly programming, which relieves you from most of the trouble
of assembling.



4.1.2. GAS

GAS has some macro capability included, as detailed in the texinfo
docs. Moreover, while GCC recognizes .s files as raw assembly to send
to GAS, it also recognizes .S files as files to pipe through CPP
before to feed them to GAS. Again and again, see Linux sources for
examples.



4.1.3. GASP

It adds all the usual macroassembly tricks to GAS. See its texinfo
docs.



4.1.4. NASM

NASM has comprehensive macro support, too. See according docs. If
you have some bright idea, you might wanna contact the authors, as
they are actively developing it. Meanwhile, see about external
filters below.



4.1.5. AS86

It has some simple macro support, but I couldn't find docs. Now the
sources are very straightforward, so if you're interested, you should
understand them easily. If you need more than the basics, you should
use an external filter (see below).



4.1.6. OTHER ASSEMBLERS


+ Win32FORTH: CODE and END-CODE are normal that do not switch from
interpretation mode to compilation mode, so you have access to the
full power of FORTH while assembling.

+ TUNES: it doesn't work yet, but the Scheme language is a real high-
level language that allows arbitrary meta-programming.



4.2. External Filters

Whatever is the macro support from your assembler, or whatever
language you use (even C !), if the language is not expressive enough
to you, you can have files passed through an external filter with a
Makefile rule like that:


______________________________________________________________________
%.s: %.S other_dependencies
$(FILTER) $(FILTER_OPTIONS) < $< > $@
______________________________________________________________________



4.2.1. CPP

CPP is truly not very expressive, but it's enough for easy things,
it's standard, and called transparently by GCC.

As an example of its limitations, you can't declare objects so that
destructors are automatically called at the end of the declaring
block; you don't have diversions or scoping, etc.

CPP comes with any C compiler. However, considering how mediocre it
is, stay away from it if by chance you can make it without C,



4.2.2. M4

M4 gives you the full power of macroprocessing, with a Turing
equivalent language, recursion, regular expressions, etc. You can do
with it everything that CPP cannot.

See macro4th (this4th)
<ftp://ftp.forth.org/pub/Forth/Compilers/native/unix/this4th.tar.gz>
or the Tunes 0.0.0.25 sources
<ftp://ftp.tunes.org/pub/tunes/obsolete/dist/tunes.0.0.0/tunes.0.0.0.25.src.zip>
as examples of advanced macroprogramming using m4.

However, its disfunctional quoting and unquoting semantics force you
to use explicit continuation-passing tail-recursive macro style if you
want to do advanced macro programming (which is remindful of TeX --
BTW, has anyone tried to use TeX as a macroprocessor for anything else
than typesetting ?). This is NOT worse than CPP that does not allow
quoting and recursion anyway.

The right version of m4 to get is GNU m4 1.4 (or later if exists),
which has the most features and the least bugs or limitations of all.
m4 is designed to be slow for anything but the simplest uses, which
might still be ok for most assembly programming (you're not writing
million-lines assembly programs, are you?).



4.2.3. Macroprocessing with your own filter

You can write your own simple macro-expansion filter with the usual
tools: perl, awk, sed, etc. That's quick to do, and you control
everything. But of course, any power in macroprocessing must be
earned the hard way.



4.2.4. Metaprogramming

Instead of using an external filter that expands macros, one way to do
things is to write programs that write part or all of other programs.

For instance, you could use a program outputting source code

+ to generate sine/cosine/whatever lookup tables,

+ to extract a source-form representation of a binary file,

+ to compile your bitmaps into fast display routines,

+ to extract documentation, initialization/finalization code,
description tables, as well as normal code from the same source
files,
+ to have customized assembly code, generated from a
perl/shell/scheme script that does arbitrary processing,

+ to propagate data defined at one point only into several cross-
referencing tables and code chunks.

+ etc.

Think about it!



4.2.4.1. Backends from compilers

Compilers like GCC, SML/NJ, Objective CAML, MIT-Scheme, CMUCL, etc, do
have their own generic assembler backend, which you might choose to
use, if you intend to generate code semi-automatically from the
according languages, or from a language you hack: rather than write
great assembly code, you may instead modify a compiler so that it
dumps great assembly code!



4.2.4.2. The New-Jersey Machine-Code Toolkit

There is a project, using the programming language Icon (with an
experimental ML version), to build a basis for producing assembly-
manipulating code. See around
<http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~nr/toolkit/>



4.2.4.3. TUNES


The TUNES Project <http://www.tunes.org> for a Free Reflective
Computing System is developing its own assembler as an extension to
the Scheme language, as part of its development process. It doesn't
run at all yet, though help is welcome.

The assembler manipulates abstract syntax trees, so it could equally
serve as the basis for a assembly syntax translator, a disassembler, a
common assembler/compiler back-end, etc. Also, the full power of a
real language, Scheme, make it unchallenged as for
macroprocessing/metaprogramming.



5. CALLING CONVENTIONS



5.1. Linux



5.1.1. Linking to GCC

This is the preferred way if you are developing mixed C-asm project.
Check GCC docs and examples from Linux kernel .S files that go through
gas (not those that go through as86).


32-bit arguments are pushed down stack in reverse syntactic order
(hence accessed/popped in the right order), above the 32-bit near
return address. %ebp, %esi, %edi, %ebx are callee-saved, other
registers are caller-saved; %eax is to hold the result, or %edx:%eax
for 64-bit results.

FP stack: I'm not sure, but I think it's result in st(0), whole stack
caller-saved.

Note that GCC has options to modify the calling conventions by
reserving registers, having arguments in registers, not assuming the
FPU, etc. Check the i386 .info pages.

Beware that you must then declare the cdecl or regparm(0) attribute
for a function that will follow standard GCC calling conventions. See
in the GCC info pages the section: C Extensions::Extended Asm::. See
also how Linux defines its asmlinkage macro...



5.1.2. ELF vs a.out problems

Some C compilers prepend an underscore before every symbol, while
others do not.

Particularly, Linux a.out GCC does such prepending, while Linux ELF
GCC does not.

If you need cope with both behaviors at once, see how existing
packages do. For instance, get an old Linux source tree, the Elk,
qthreads, or OCaml...

You can also override the implicit C->asm renaming by inserting
statements like

______________________________________________________________________
void foo asm("bar") (void);
______________________________________________________________________


to be sure that the C function foo will be called really bar in assem¡
bly.

Note that the utility objcopy, from the binutils package, should allow
you to transform your a.out objects into ELF objects, and perhaps the
contrary too, in some cases. More generally, it will do lots of file
format conversions.



5.1.3. Direct Linux syscalls

Often you will be told that using libc is the only way, and direct
system calls are bad. This is true. To some extent. So, you must know
that libc is not sacred, and in most cases libc only does some checks,
then calls kernel, and then sets errno. You can easily do this in
your program as well (if you need to), and your program will be dozen
times smaller, and this will also result in improved performance, just
because you're not using shared libraries (static binaries are
faster). Using or not using libc in assembly programming is more a
question of taste/belief than something practical. Remember, Linux is
aiming to be POSIX compliant, so does libc. This means that syntax of
almost all libc "system calls" exactly matches syntax of real kernel
system calls (and vice versa). Besides, modern libc becomes slower and
slower, and eats more and more memory, and so, cases of using direct
system calls become quite usual. But.. main drawback of throwing libc
away is that possibly you will need to implement several libc specific
functions (that are not just syscall wrappers) on your own (printf and
Co.).. and you are ready for that, aren't you?


Here is summary of direct system calls pros and cons.

Pros:

+ smallest possible size; squeezing the last byte out of the system.

+ highest possible speed; squeezing cycles out of your favorite
benchmark.

+ full control: you can adapt your program/library to your specific
language or memory requirements or whatever

+ no pollution by libc cruft.

+ no pollution by C calling conventions (if you're developing your
own language or environment).

+ static binaries make you independent from libc upgrades or crashes,
or from dangling #! path to a interpreter (and are faster).

+ just for the fun out of it (don't you get a kick out of assembly
programming?)

Cons:

+ If any other program on your computer uses the libc, then
duplicating the libc code will actually waste memory, not save it.

+ Services redundantly implemented in many static binaries are a
waste of memory. But you can make your libc replacement a shared
library.

+ Size is much better saved by having some kind of bytecode,
wordcode, or structure interpreter than by writing everything in
assembly. (the interpreter itself could be written either in C or
assembly.) The best way to keep multiple binaries small is to not
have multiple binaries, but instead to have an interpreter process
files with #! prefix. This is how OCaml works when used in
wordcode mode (as opposed to optimized native code mode), and it is
compatible with using the libc. This is also how Tom
Christiansen's Perl PowerTools <http://language.perl.com/ppt/>
reimplementation of unix utilities works. Finally, one last way to
keep things small, that doesn't depend on an external file with a
hardcoded path, be it library or interpreter, is to have only one
binary, and have multiply-named hard or soft links to it: the same
binary will provide everything you need in an optimal space, with
no redundancy of subroutines or useless binary headers; it will
dispatch its specific behavior according to its argv[0]; in case it
isn't called with a recognized name, it might default to a shell,
and be possibly thus also usable as an interpreter!

+ You cannot benefit from the many functionalities that libc provides
besides mere linux syscalls: that is, functionality described in
section 3 of the manual pages, as opposed to section 2, such as
malloc, threads, locale, password, high-level network management,
etc.

+ Consequently, you might have to reimplement large parts of libc,
from printf to malloc and gethostbyname. It's redundant with the
libc effort, and can be quite boring sometimes. Note that some
people have already reimplemented "light" replacements for parts of
the libc -- check them out! (Redhat's minilibc, Rick Hohensee's
libsys <ftp://linux01.gwdg.de/pub/cLIeNUX/interim/libsys.tgz>,
Felix von Leitner's dietlibc <http://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/>,
Christian Fowelin's ``libASM', ``asmutils' project is working on
pure assembly libc)

+ Static libraries prevent your benefitting from libc upgrades as
well as from libc add-ons such as the zlibc package, that does on-
the-fly transparent decompression of gzip-compressed files.

+ The few instructions added by the libc are a ridiculously small
speed overhead as compared to the cost of a system call. If speed
is a concern, your main problem is in your usage of system calls,
not in their wrapper's implementation.

+ Using the standard assembly API for system calls is much slower
than using the libc API when running in micro-kernel versions of
Linux such as L4Linux, that have their own faster calling
convention, and pay high convention-translation overhead when using
the standard one (L4Linux comes with libc recompiled with their
syscall API; of course, you could recompile your code with their
API, too).

+ See previous discussion for general speed optimization issue.

+ If syscalls are too slow to you, you might want to hack the kernel
sources (in C) instead of staying in userland.

If you've pondered the above pros and cons, and still want to use
direct syscalls (as documented in section 2 of the manual pages), then
here is some advice.


+ You can easily define your system calling functions in a portable
way in C (as opposed to unportable using assembly), by including
<asm/unistd.h>, and using provided macros.

+ Since you're trying to replace it, go get the sources for the libc,
and grok them. (And if you think you can do better, then send
feedback to the authors!)

+ As an example of pure assembly code that does everything you want,
examine ``Linux Assembly resources'.

Basically, you issue an int 0x80, with the __NR_syscallname number
(from asm/unistd.h) in eax, and parameters (up to five) in ebx, ecx,
edx, esi, edi respectively. Result is returned in eax, with a
negative result being an error, whose opposite is what libc would put
in errno. The user-stack is not touched, so you needn't have a valid
one when doing a syscall.

As for the invocation arguments passed to a process upon startup, the
general principle is that the stack originally contains the number of
arguments argc, then the list of pointers that constitute *argv, then
a null-terminated sequence of null-terminated variable=value strings
for the environment. For more details, do examine ``Linux assembly
resources', read the sources of C startup code from your libc (crt0.S
or crt1.S), or those from the Linux kernel (exec.c and binfmt_*.c in
linux/fs/).



5.1.4. Hardware I/O under Linux

If you want to do direct I/O under Linux, either it's something very
simple that needn't OS arbitration, and you should see the IO-Port-
Programming mini-HOWTO; or it needs a kernel device driver, and you
should tr