A few questions about exception handling

[Eri523]

You should have posted your code within code tags. Even more than most other languages, assembly language code is particularly unreadable without them. With code tags (and after some additional shifting around to improve column alignment), your code looks like this:

      MOV AX,
      MOV BX,
      DEC BX
      CMP AX,BX
      JC  NEXT
      JMP EXIT
NEXT  CMP AX,0
      JG  COND1
      JMP ELSE1
COND1 CMP BX,0
      JLE POWER
ELSE1 DEC AX
      INC BX
      CMP AX,BX
      JC  COND2
POWER MOV AX,BX
      MUL BX
      JMP EXIT
COND2 CMP AX,0                  
      JNE COND3
      JMP ELSE2
COND3 CMP BX,0      
      JNE COND4
      JMP ELSE2
COND4 MOV AX,1
      JMP EXIT
ELSE2 AND AX,BX
      MOV CL,3
      SHR AX,CL
      MOV BX,AX
EXIT  HLT

After all, I'd say you made a good start to it. However, the code still contains quite some bugs.

The IMO most obvious one first: All your jumps are forward, so there's no loop at all in your code.

The DEC instruction in your rendition of the first line of the C++ code should be after the CMP, since the C++ code demands post-decrement.

The JC instruction you use for your first conditional jump is for unsigned integers while your variables are signed. (More specifically, that instruction explicitly names the flag to check, but it's technically identical to the unsigned JB instruction.) All your other conditional jumps are correct - regarding their signedness. They need a thorough re-check regarding the overall jump structure, though.

Just to mention a few. Most of that should be relatively easy to spot by doing some debugging in your emulator. To make your code runnable in the emulator, simply give the registers initial values in the first two lines of your assembly code. The C++ code doesn't demand any specific initial values, so you may pick any values you like, but a clever choice of values may simplify spotting problems while debugging. It may not be the best choice to initialize both to 0.

Finally, your question is completely unrelated to the subject of this thread. You should better have posted that in your other thread on that subject that already exists. Don't take the fact that you now got substantial help here as an encouragement to do further hijacking of unrelated threads. You just got that help because now you've posted your code. Please post further questions regarding this topic in the other thread. (And perhaps a moderator can move these off-topic posts to the other thread, simplifying life for us and potential readers of the threads. )