I just want to inquire for small talk if there is a way to do
the following without all the arbitrary source.

So you don't exactly have to read it I am taking a byte and
printing its decimal number the code below is the tenth place
of the byte I am trying to print.

Please excuse the poor source but my editor has a mind of it's own.

Also answer my poll all casual comedy is welcome.

I couldn't read/understand your code.

I think you should do the following steps:

1. invent an algorithm
2. implement it in C.
3. If that works, then you can try to implement it in Assembly

1) Why are you writing asm code for a 16 bit MS-DOS environment? If someone told you that is a place to start before learning modern asm, they misled you.

2) Why are you trying to learn ASM before you learn the basics of programming? Given the terrible formatting, I chose not to examine every detail of your code. But from an overview, I can see you are doing significant excess work as a result of not thinking like a programmer. Before you learn ASM, learn how to use more thought in order to use less code. That type of thinking applies across a range of languages.

1 members found this post helpful.

I will quickly agree with the foregoing.

"This is what language compilers are for." In almost every case, it's entirely pointless for you to waste your time coding a complete algorithm in assembler. The odds are much better that an optimizing compiler will do a better job at producing object-code than you will.

If you want to see how assembly-code is actually used "today," just look at the Linux kernel source-tree. You'll find that it's used in these ways:

1. For the necessarily architecture-specific "trampoline" code that is used when the computer is first IPLed started up.
2. For (once again, architecture-specific) subroutines which embody specific implementations of those functions. These subroutines are called by code that has been written in "C." The vast majority of the kernel is written in "C," and: There's A Reason For That.™

Quite frankly, today's microprocessors are not engineered to handle "human-generated" opcode sequences. They're designed to efficiently process the output of compilers ... which are, in turn, designed to generate outputs that can be efficiently processed. As Greyhound Bus Lines used to say, "and leave the driving to us.™" Sage advice.

Well i am just practicing assembly that's why I am using assembly language to do that. I was just inquiring if anyone here new any tricks. Thanks guys.

Using a divide operation or even a subtract loop when you want an operation like divide is not a "trick".

Testing each of a uniform set of possibilities individually is not competent programming. There is almost always a simple way to generalize, so that far less code is needed to transform the desired input into the desired output.

If you are "practicing assembly," then I suggest that you confine your practice sessions only to realistic situations in which (these days ...) assembly-language programming is actually used. Just look at the /arch subdirectory of any Linux-kernel source tree: almost all of the entries in there are C-language source files with asm { ... } directives. The only real exceptions to be found are those that have to do with the "trampoline" (pre-boot ...) phase.

There is a reason for this. Modern microprocessors are not engineered to handle human-generated assembly code! They are prepared to expect the output of compilers which have been built according to the "suggestions" of the silicon-chip companies. asm {} is therefore reserved only for very short pieces of code that cannot be expressed in any other way.