Need an online reference for 8086 assembler
-
Wow, is this a paid gig? Who is still using 8086 chipsets?
Nish Nishant Consultant Software Architect Ganymede Software Solutions LLC www.ganymedesoftwaresolutions.com
Essentially, all of us. It's still the common denominator if you don't want to make any assumptions on which platform your code is going to run.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
I need to do some very low-level coding in assembler. I used to do a lot of this, but just need a bit of a refresher in syntax. Does anyone have a decent link for this? I've been searching, and I can find the opcodes/symbols, but without the syntax. For example, what exactly is the LES format entered? Even the Intel site doesn't seem to cover these "ancient technologies" anymore... :doh:
-
Essentially, all of us. It's still the common denominator if you don't want to make any assumptions on which platform your code is going to run.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
I think it's reasonable to assume there will be at least a Pentium-compatible processor these days since it's more than twenty-five years old now.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
-
Wow, is this a paid gig? Who is still using 8086 chipsets?
Nish Nishant Consultant Software Architect Ganymede Software Solutions LLC www.ganymedesoftwaresolutions.com
Tern still makes embedded controllers running 186 to 486 compatible chips. so there's still manufactures building with those chips. I worked with one of their 286 boards a couple years back, it was a lot of fun writing SPI and 2-wire code to communicate with the various other chips on the board. Haven't touched assembly in years, for now c, is good enough in what i'm doing.
-
Tern still makes embedded controllers running 186 to 486 compatible chips. so there's still manufactures building with those chips. I worked with one of their 286 boards a couple years back, it was a lot of fun writing SPI and 2-wire code to communicate with the various other chips on the board. Haven't touched assembly in years, for now c, is good enough in what i'm doing.
Yes, but 8086 is specifically 16 bit.
Nish Nishant Consultant Software Architect Ganymede Software Solutions LLC www.ganymedesoftwaresolutions.com
-
Yes, but 8086 is specifically 16 bit.
Nish Nishant Consultant Software Architect Ganymede Software Solutions LLC www.ganymedesoftwaresolutions.com
the 80186 is pretty much the same as the 8086, just meant for embedded applications, and ran the same instruction set. The x286 chip is also only 16bit, but getting into x386 things changed up allowing 32bit code to run, but the original x86 -16bit would still run fine.
-
Do you really have to go back that far? I got by with a Pentium instruction manual about twenty years ago.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
i still got the intel x386 processor book on my shelf, real handy when working with the x86 embedded stuff.
-
You piqued my curiosity -- what are you doing that requires 8086 assembler?
I am working on a legacy DOS app that I hope to modernize into a Windows app, but it will be in a series of stages. In this stage, I need to write a TSR (Terminate and Stay Resident) COM application to monitor some of the activity going on in the app. I wrote similar TSR DOS apps in the mid-80's, but it has been a very long time. It took some special effort to get a DOS .COM app to compile at all with VS 2019 - no MASM (done under C++), and the Linker doesn't get some of the options that used to be available...
-
I am working on a legacy DOS app that I hope to modernize into a Windows app, but it will be in a series of stages. In this stage, I need to write a TSR (Terminate and Stay Resident) COM application to monitor some of the activity going on in the app. I wrote similar TSR DOS apps in the mid-80's, but it has been a very long time. It took some special effort to get a DOS .COM app to compile at all with VS 2019 - no MASM (done under C++), and the Linker doesn't get some of the options that used to be available...
I figured the need had to be some type of legacy application or hardware. Good luck with the effort! BTW, a friend's organization has some specialized hardware that runs only on a 286. They have had the same PC in production since ~1990. I have no idea what they will do when the PC finally fails.
-
i still got the intel x386 processor book on my shelf, real handy when working with the x86 embedded stuff.
I used to have all my "old" development references, but after a divorce and moving to US for a few years, a lot of things got lost in the process...
-
I figured the need had to be some type of legacy application or hardware. Good luck with the effort! BTW, a friend's organization has some specialized hardware that runs only on a 286. They have had the same PC in production since ~1990. I have no idea what they will do when the PC finally fails.
That's the exact same problem the users of this application have - their old hardware (for DOS) is failing. That includes printers that handle straight ASCII output. If your friend is interested, I might be able to provide some guidance or assistance on this...
-
That's the exact same problem the users of this application have - their old hardware (for DOS) is failing. That includes printers that handle straight ASCII output. If your friend is interested, I might be able to provide some guidance or assistance on this...
Andreas Mertens wrote:
If your friend is interested, I might be able to provide some guidance or assistance on this...
Thanks for the offer, but my friend is not responsible for the situation nor directly involved. The responsible folks are utilizing the time-old method "lots of praying" in lieu of replacing the hardware. When it eventually fails they will be forced to buy a new solution. I suspect they are ignoring that corollary to Murphy's Law that states, "hardware failure will occur at exactly the worst possible moment".
-
I need to do some very low-level coding in assembler. I used to do a lot of this, but just need a bit of a refresher in syntax. Does anyone have a decent link for this? I've been searching, and I can find the opcodes/symbols, but without the syntax. For example, what exactly is the LES format entered? Even the Intel site doesn't seem to cover these "ancient technologies" anymore... :doh:
You might be able to download what you need here: Intel Other Resources - Intel Vintage[^]
-
I think it's reasonable to assume there will be at least a Pentium-compatible processor these days since it's more than twenty-five years old now.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
I never was a fan of Intel, but are there not compatible microcontrollers?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
the 80186 is pretty much the same as the 8086, just meant for embedded applications, and ran the same instruction set. The x286 chip is also only 16bit, but getting into x386 things changed up allowing 32bit code to run, but the original x86 -16bit would still run fine.
The virtual DOS support in the 386 was, inadvertently, one of the worst things to ever happen. Because of that, Microsoft bailed out of OS/2, and went back to making money on DOS and started Windows 1.0 on top of DOS, and the rest is history. Without that, OS/2 would have likely stuck and we'd have a vastly more sane environment to work in today. OS/2 threw out the Win32 API and created a completely new one that was consistent, and actually designed, not excrementally grown.
Explorans limites defectum
-
The virtual DOS support in the 386 was, inadvertently, one of the worst things to ever happen. Because of that, Microsoft bailed out of OS/2, and went back to making money on DOS and started Windows 1.0 on top of DOS, and the rest is history. Without that, OS/2 would have likely stuck and we'd have a vastly more sane environment to work in today. OS/2 threw out the Win32 API and created a completely new one that was consistent, and actually designed, not excrementally grown.
Explorans limites defectum
That's not exactly what happened. Windows 1.0 was quite a while before OS/2. A dispute over Windows 3.1 was what led to discontinuing joint development on OS/2. Microsoft took that API and developed NT with it and the end result was still very, very similar to OS/2 . In fact, the older documentation of the Win32 API would note compatibility with OS/2 for the various functions.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
-
I never was a fan of Intel, but are there not compatible microcontrollers?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
I am not sure. The main ones Intel had/have were not compatible like the 8048 and 8051. I have not followed microcontrollers for a while now.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
-
Oh, that's a keeper! I wish I'd kept all my old (hard copy) reference manuals, but this'll do for starters!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
That's not exactly what happened. Windows 1.0 was quite a while before OS/2. A dispute over Windows 3.1 was what led to discontinuing joint development on OS/2. Microsoft took that API and developed NT with it and the end result was still very, very similar to OS/2 . In fact, the older documentation of the Win32 API would note compatibility with OS/2 for the various functions.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
They were about 2 years apart, but that's initial release, not when planning and work started on them. Anyhoo, the bottom line is that once it became possible to 'multi-task' DOS applications, OS/2 was pretty much doomed because Microsoft could continue to milk that cow instead of forcing the adoption of a new standard. Obviously forcing a new standard is hard, but we'd have all been far better off for it. As to the compatibility there isn't much that I can see. The OS/2 API was extremely consistent in terms of naming and parameters and such. The Win32 API was basically a hacked up version of the previous Windows APIs. Win32 is a mess in comparison to the OS/2 interfaces. IBM took OS/2 on to the 32 bit form and it was nice, though of course back then it took like 25 floppy disks to install or some such.
Explorans limites defectum