From: "A.Appleyard" To: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 09:15:29 BST Subject: Re: inline asm? Cc: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu mat AT ardi DOT com (Mat Hostetter) wrote:- > You could "pushal" them onto the stack and "popal" them when you are done. I hadn't heard of pushal and popal before. What PC processors can obey them? I prefer not to use 486-specific code while there are still many 386's about. Sometimes I have to write Gnu C++ programs for compiling for people in my department to run on other PC's. > But if you are just writing interrupt glue, I'd just write the function > completely in assembly and only save/restore those registers which the C > calling convention requires (with a few pushl's/popl's, which are very fast > on the Pentium and elsewhere). In my manual of interrupts, the descriptions of most interrupts include a long list of registers which are clobbered by that interrupt, so I feel safer saving every register every time. I also find it easier to read to: write the interrupt's args to `long _ax' etc; swop _ax etc with the registers; call the interrupt; swop back; pick the interrupt's results out of _ax etc. > I dunno...Intel must offer such literature. What is Intel's postal address and phone number?