addon

[Charles Bailey]

Perhaps loopw is used to represent loop in 16-bit mode or loop with a 
67h address-size override prefix in 32-bit mode?  According to the intel 
docs it's the address-size attribute which determines whether cx or ecx 
is used as the counter for loop, nad I presumet that the 67h prefix is 
valid in this context.

I suppose this matters if you have undefined rubbish in the high word of 
ecx?

Peter Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, pingved at gmail.com wrote:
>> 1. Constant definitions:
>> BIOS_SEGMENT equ 0F000h - supported
>> BIOS_SEGMENT = 0F000h - not supported ("instruction expected after label"), more simple
> 
> I'd be willing to add this.
> 
>> 2. "instruction expected after label", problem with keyword loopw.
>> next_block:
>>    mov al,byte [es:si]
>>    mov byte [gs:edi],al
>>    inc si
>>    inc edi
>>    loopw next_block
> 
> loopw is not an instruction/keyword in NASM syntax.  Are you sure you 
> didn't mean simply
>      loop next_block
> ?
> 
> Peter
> _______________________________________________
> yasm-devel mailing list
> yasm-devel at tortall.net
> http://cvs.tortall.net/mailman/listinfo/yasm-devel