This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
I have no idea what INT(3) does. That is, if you use the "INT <immediate>" form
of the INT instruction, and you supply a "3" as the numeric operand, then
what is the mnemonic for that instruction? Is the two-byte "INT 3" defined to
have the same semantics as the one-byte INT 3?
The opcode for INT 3 is 0xCC, as opposite from the opcode for INT immediate, which is 0xCD imm8. According to Intel documentation: "Intel and Microsoft assemblers will not generate the CD03 opcode from any mnemonic" and 0xCC has some special features, which are not shared by "the normal 2-byte opcode for INT 3 (CD03)"..
IA-32 Intel® Architecture Software Developer’s Manual. Volume 2A (Instruction Set Reference, A-M). Order no. 253666.
I posit that, being a single byte, it's possible to fill any gap with INT3. Moreover, and probably more importantly, any byte will be an instruction, so that there is no synchronisation problem. All the best: RichFarmbrough09:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Nope they are different - One page is the BIOS interrupts and the other is a general IVT article. I say don't merge them or you will have many unhappy people such as the group of us who are making an OS. Many people use the first article for BIOS interrupts and the second for more info on how to set up the IVT. Do not merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.80.149 (talk • contribs)
They may be different, but there is so much overlap that it matters very little. There is no reason that both cannot be discussed in a single article. And people who make OSes are better served by osdev.org anyway. —Keφr 16:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.