Transcoding Math to Basic, to C, to Assembly, to Machine Code

Using the Gauss summation method to create a programming routine that summarizes all integers up to a given number and then converting the program from basic language to c language to x86 assembly language to hex machine code and finally to binary machine code.
😊 My social links
➥ www.DJopensource.com
🎵 My music on Spotify
➥ open.spotify.com/artist/2gpon...
🎚 My Spotify playlists
➥ open.spotify.com/user/ii93onz...
🎻 My Orchestrations
➥ / angelosmavros
🤡 Psycomics series
➥ / psycomics

[@maxmuster7003]

Good work.

[@herrbonk3635]

RET=C3 regardless of 16/32/64 bit mode.
8086 was certainly not the first "16-bit" processor (not even the first 16-bit microprocessor).
8086 was designed in the 1970s, not 80s, and it wasn't made by "Windows" either...

[@djopensource]

It was the 1st 16bit processor of mass production wasn't it ? I noticed the 70s mistake myself and add it in the comments instead of re-exporting/re-uploading the video, as I assumed nobody will watch it. Didn't imply was made by "microsoft". Thanks for the indications ! :)

[@herrbonk3635]

@@djopensource Are you equating processor with microprocessor? There were dozens of popular 16-bits processors (or wider) before the 8086, from the 1950s and onwards.

[@djopensource]

@@herrbonk3635 Yes I am equating it because since 1976 the whole world is equating it by calling it cpu or else computer processing unit. The word "micro" lost its meaning, as if you are aware of, and you most probably are, the altair and the centurion were considered "microcomputers", and they were indeed, from a point of view.

[@herrbonk3635]

@@djopensource Well, since 1996 perhaps... but certainly not in 1976, when the microprocessor was brand new, and generally only used for special embedded systems. That could be calculators, cash registers, advanced printers, plotters, industrial robots, and so on. This was what the microprocessor was intended for. Normal computers were either large "mainframes" or smaller TTL-based mini computers. The famous PDP-11 and VAX were common, among many others.

[@maxmuster7003]

I do not like to use the calling convention with pushing and poping values to/from the stack. I like to use move and move instructions to and from a reserved memory location using the data segment, so the stack is only used and filled with return addresses from calling subroutines. Now we can access our memory locations of the data segment from inside and outside nested subroutines without to care where the stack pointer actualy is and we can load the values multiple times and nothing get lost.

[@djopensource]

Great info. Good to know. I am just a hobbyist programmer.... :)

[@maxmuster7003]

@@djopensource If it is possible we can use only register for calling subroutines.

[@maxmuster7003]

@@djopensource Push/pop execute very slow on CPU before Pentium 4 was made. I started x86 assembly programming on an Intel 80286 16 bit CPU with MS DOS 5. My last PC had an Intel Core2quad CPU 64 bit with 8 gb DDR2, but it is broken. Now i am on an Android tablet with a DOSBOX app installed, so i can use 80386/80387 32 bit instructions.