-1

Can anyone recommend a book or provide web references describing software interrupts in assembly language for x86-16?

For example,

mov ah,1
int 21h

to read one char.

Peter Cordes
  • 328,167
  • 45
  • 605
  • 847
user3465947
  • 13
  • 4

1 Answers1

5

8086 DOS and BIOS interrupts you mean?

http://www.ctyme.com/intr/int.htm

Michael Petch
  • 46,082
  • 8
  • 107
  • 198
JBES
  • 1,512
  • 11
  • 18
  • INT 21H - MSDOS "calls". Most of the other INT's are BIOS "calls". – rcgldr Mar 31 '14 at 01:04
  • And your point is? The question specifically asks about interrupts in general, not just `int 21h` which was used as an example. And you are incorrect anyway - `21h` is used very widely, MSDOS uses just a fraction of available commands at this *BIOS* interrupt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS_interrupt_call – JBES Mar 31 '14 at 01:39
  • Note that INT 21H is the "main DOS API": [wiki DOS_interrupt_call](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS_interrupt_call). There are also others as mentioned in both wiki articles. – rcgldr Mar 31 '14 at 02:36
  • I never said it wasn't @rcgldr. You seem to be confusing MSDOS and DOS. They are not the same thing, MSDOS is a DOS. And DOS make usage of BIOS interrupts. You specifically state MSDOS in your first comment and even say the int21h BIOS interrupt functions are MSDOS "calls". – JBES Mar 31 '14 at 15:21
  • DOS uses BIOS interrupt calls, but BIOS doesn't use DOS interrupt calls (although DOS may replace the BIOS interrupt vectors with pointers to it's own code). Note that the wiki article for [BIOS_interrupt_call](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS_interrupt_call) doesn't include INT 21H, it's not a BIOS call. "confusing MSDOS and DOS" - for other old timers like myself, DOS could also mean DOS used on IBM 360 and other old mainfames, or MITS DOS used on the Altair, so I used the term "MSDOS", although these days "DOS" is now the generic term used for PCDOS, MSDOS, ... . – rcgldr Mar 31 '14 at 21:44
  • Geez. On and on. Just accept you were wrong for once? Your statements, while properly incorrect, are now making less and less sense. – JBES Mar 31 '14 at 21:56