I am building an assembly program that outputs the first input raised to the power of the second input...

i am building an assembly program that outputs the first input raised to the power of the second input. but i cant make it work.

Attached: VirtualBox_TUD-CSE-2018-2019_01_10_2018_10_34_09.png (1280x800, 244K)

Fuck off were not doing your homework for you

>AT&T Syntax
Fuck off.

Fuck off we're not doing your homework for you

line 36:
>movq -8(%rax), %rsi
What are you doing, nigger? Shouldn't it simply be %rax, %rsi?
And why are you allocating space on the stack twice? Just allocate 16 bytes once.

Fuck off, we're not doing your homework for you!

>Helping faggots with their homework
What the fuck are you doing, nigger? Stop spoonfeeding faggots who don't read the sticky.

>sublime text
Yaiks!

call scanf #calls scanf

my sides

Attached: lemon.gif (500x356, 659K)

>at&t
>all those superfluous comments
you need to be 18+ to post here

Attached: 1538368000780.png (600x450, 204K)

I don't know shit about coding but if these two syntaxes are equivalent then the first one shouldn't even exist in the first place

Hijacking this thread because OP is a fag.
Why is all of the asm literature I'm finding x86 only? Other architectures, including x86_64, are a footnote by comparison, and all of the introductory books are either x86 or "we're going to make our own architecture to learn on that doesn't exist anywhere else but here but it's a good teaching tool I promise!!!" I don't need to know enough to be a 1337 haxx0r, but even a "if you're familiar with x86 here's a primer for asm on [architecture]" would be better than what I'm finding. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places though, I don't know.

Attached: 1518667009104.jpg (675x675, 49K)

I'd guess that the datasheets for CPUs/MCUs running those other architectures probably includes at least useful bits of information on it

Are you retarded?

idk maybe, why ?

In some situations you need to signify that there's an operand. Do you really think they wouldn't have gotten rid of it already if it wasn't necessary?

>Do you really think they wouldn't have gotten rid of it already if it wasn't necessary?
Blow your bullshit out of your ass, not on here. A lot of people prefer Intel syntax over AT&T. It's just a matter of preference. You don't need AT&T syntax, if you like it, good for you. I think it's overly verbose.

unironically this

Usable != Overly verbose

if you can write x86, you can write asm for other architectures without much hassle given the right datasheet/manual. it's literally just the same thing, just moving data around, the difference is how many arms your arch has how many joints your arms have.

Are you retarded?
pushq %rbp
push rbp

leaq -8[%rbp], %rsi
lea rsi, [rbp - 8]

incq %rdx
inc rdx

It's overly verbose, brevity is the soul of wit.