I have a table like this:



db 00,01,02,03,04,05
db 06,07,08,09,10,11
db 12,13,14,21,34,67
etc...

the second line does not compile because the leading zero for '08' and '09' default to octal.

It seems to me to be more usual for decimal to be the more common base in other assemblers. (Does anyone out there actually use octal?)

I modified my 'EXPRESSI.INC' like this to fix it for decimal

lines 185 to 188


inc esi
;; cmp byte [ebx],'0'
;; je get_oct_number
get_dec_number:

Just the two lines commented out as shown above does the trick.

PS: Perhaps the zero is meant to be a letter O perhaps?

PPS: In case you are wondering, I use leading zero so that the numbers line up nicely on screen.
Posted on 2003-05-22 10:01:17 by revolution
I took it from the C language, as well as the 0x prefix for hexadecimal numbers. Should I disable this feature in official releases?
Posted on 2003-05-22 12:02:57 by Tomasz Grysztar
Yes, I was using leading 0 for alignment reasons as well. I had to disable 0 for octal representation myself.
I think its a good idea to disable it in official releases.
Posted on 2003-05-22 12:10:30 by comrade
Quick fix and it's now officially disabled since 1.46.9.4
Posted on 2003-05-22 13:59:48 by Tomasz Grysztar
Luchshe chem nichego :)
Posted on 2003-05-22 15:45:36 by comrade

(Does anyone out there actually use octal?)

What was (assuming it's been used in the "good old days"Posted on 2003-05-22 16:32:18 by scientica
So that explains that wierd error I got last week.

Octal was useful when you had data that was divisable into three bit groups.
Posted on 2003-05-23 02:20:57 by eet_1024

Octal was useful when you had data that was divisable into three bit groups.

Like the 8086 opcodes, for example.
Posted on 2003-05-23 02:40:33 by Tomasz Grysztar
Yes, and Linux/Unix file access permitions. Where is Bazik? :grin:
Posted on 2003-05-23 03:07:48 by JohnFound

Quick fix and it's now officially disabled since 1.46.9.4

Hey, good job.

Thanks
Posted on 2003-05-23 04:43:11 by revolution