In NASM, $numA
is the same as numA
. A leading $
stops the assembler from considering it as a register name. Thus you can write mov eax, [$eax]
to load the eax
register from a symbol called eax
. (So you could link with C which used int eax = 123;
)
So mov [$numA], al
looks weird, but it's really just mov [numA], al
and isn't the source of the error.
You're getting the error from mov dl,$numA
which does a mov dl, imm8
of the low byte of the address.
The linker warns you because the address of numA
doesn't fit in 1 byte, so the r_386_8
relocation would have had to truncate the address.
The _8
tells you it's a relocation that asks the linker to fill in 8 bits (1 byte) as an absolute address. (8-bit relative branch displacements have a different relocation type, although normally you'd use a 32-bit displacement for jumping to a symbol in another file.)
The r_386
tells you it's an i386 relocation as opposed to some type of r_x86_64
relocation (which could be absolute or RIP-relative), or a MIPS jump-target relocation (which would need to right-shift the offset by 2). Possibly related: Relocations in the System V gABI (generic ABI, for which the i386 SysV psABI is a "processor supplement").
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…