assembly code

[Danimal1209]

So, I understand registers, base/stack pointers, and the instructions. I can sort of walk through a program and somewhat tell what it is doing. But I have a terrible time translating this in to another language, like C.

Any advice?
Also, I have been using GDB to debug, is there a better debugger that will disassemble?

[Train]

Might be better to start looking at it from the other direction. Write a simple method in C, compile it, and look at it in an Assembler. Sometimes the stuff the compiler comes up with will surprise you, and totally give you a different perspective.

Try a recursive function, and watch how the assembly uses a stack to trace its steps up and down the function calls.

[degibson]

Write more C; over time, you'll start to see the assembly pretty easily through the veneer of C, but only practice will get you there.

[Ken g6]

Try compiling your C code with gcc -S. That outputs the assembly code equivalent.

[Kromis]

*Shudder* Assembly...that stuff gave me nightmares, yo! I never learned C either, it was just killing me.

[lambchops511]

Learning assembly is useful for specific optimization (think SSE or other vector instructions if you don't like x86-64). If you need to deal with base/stack pointers you are likely coding in the wrong decade.

[degibson]

Originally Posted by lambchops511

Learning assembly is useful for specific optimization (think SSE or other vector instructions if you don't like x86-64). If you need to deal with base/stack pointers you are likely coding in the wrong decade.

Don't let the naive dissuade you, OP:
- There's a huge value in understanding the machine at the level of base and stack pointers;
- Similarly large value in understanding how high-level languages map to assembly-level constructs;
- Not all platforms afford the luxury of high-level execution environments;
- Programmers write compilers, don't they?

[ObscureCaucasian]

Originally Posted by degibson

Don't let the naive dissuade you, OP:
- There's a huge value in understanding the machine at the level of base and stack pointers;
- Similarly large value in understanding how high-level languages map to assembly-level constructs;
- Not all platforms afford the luxury of high-level execution environments;
- Programmers write compilers, don't they?

I very much agree, I personally think that a knowledge of how the code you write will be translated into assembly (at least at some level) is critical. Then again the higher-level language you work in, the less critical this may be, however I love embedded/systems programming, so I can't imagine _not_ understanding code at this level.

[exdeath]

Use a IDE that shows interleaved C and corresponding assembly output during debug tracing/stepping. Disable optimizations. Have fun discovering that there are really only a handful of constructs that keep occurring over and over again in assembly (conditionals, for loops, do/while loops, etc).

When you work in pure assembly, you'll naturally learn to comment everything and all the comments end up actually looking like an entire pseudo C program.

My current platform of interest is the 6502 / NES. Very unique and challenging platform.

Some excerpts:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2271963

[exdeath]

Originally Posted by degibson

Don't let the naive dissuade you, OP:
- There's a huge value in understanding the machine at the level of base and stack pointers;
- Similarly large value in understanding how high-level languages map to assembly-level constructs;
- Not all platforms afford the luxury of high-level execution environments;
- Programmers write compilers, don't they?

WHAT? You mean I can't have Java on a system with 2k of RAM?! What do you mean I need 2 GB RAM just to write "Hello World!" ?

[degibson]

2k will get you just to your HelloWorldFactory
But in 4k, you can do this: http://www.nullterminator.net/java/sub4k/

[Markbnj]

Originally Posted by degibson

Don't let the naive dissuade you, OP:
- There's a huge value in understanding the machine at the level of base and stack pointers;
- Similarly large value in understanding how high-level languages map to assembly-level constructs;
- Not all platforms afford the luxury of high-level execution environments;
- Programmers write compilers, don't they?

Major-league agree with this.

[Cogman]

Originally Posted by exdeath

WHAT? You mean I can't have Java on a system with 2k of RAM?! What do you mean I need 2 GB RAM just to write "Hello World!" ?

Come now, Java isn't THAT bad. I mean, you should have a system with at least 64mb of memory before trying to do anything with it... but it isn't THAT bad. (Though, come to think of it, our current java solution will eat up around 8gb of ram with everything running and doing nothing... Yeah, not great, but at least I can delude myself into believing that it is a huge system).

[postmortemIA]

I wouldn't want to read assembly code of i386 CPUs, compile it with gcc for PowerPC, which has much simpler instruction set.