Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!saxony!dgil
From: dgil@pa.reuter.COM (Dave Gillett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Inline assembly code possible with any compiler
Message-ID: <386@saxony.pa.reuter.COM>
Date: 5 Sep 90 18:47:56 GMT
References: <1990Sep4.100511.10686@uokmax.uucp> <528@demott.COM>
Organization: Reuter:file Inc  (A Reuter Company) Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 18

In <528@demott.COM> kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt) writes:

>In article <1990Sep4.100511.10686@uokmax.uucp> bateman@nsslsun.gcn.uoknor.edu (Monte Bateman) writes:
>>It's possible to do in-line assembler with ANY compiler.    
>[ abominable technique of executing a string of octal constants deleted].

>    Sorry, that isn't in-line assembly.  It's unsupportable, and since
>there can't be any references to normal variables, mostly useless.  The
>power on in-line assembly is that you *can* get to normal variables, with
>the linker doing the corrections for you.

Technically, it's also not "in-line" because the compiler is generating a
*function call* into the octal code, which hopefully ends with a suitable
return instruction (near/far or whatever).  The main attraction of putting
machine instructions in-line instead of linking to an assembly-language
routine is to avoid the function call/return overhead, and this method
doesn't.
                                           Dave