Driver sample with *.asm source
in [Device Drivers]
|
Prev: USBD_STATUS_XACT_ERROR
Next: passthru install???
From: Maxim S. Shatskih on 12 Jun 2006 07:31 > the Mars bar slogan, "x86, x64, and IA64" reads as "Intel architecture, > Intel architecture, and more Intel architecture". In comparison to how IA64 has nearly nothing in common with x86, except the vendor name. -- Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP StorageCraft Corporation maxim(a)storagecraft.com http://www.storagecraft.com
From: Vetzak on 12 Jun 2006 10:01 You can generate a .asm file from an existing driver using IDAPro 5. This program generates an .asm file that can be passed to masm. Tim Roberts wrote: > Peter <Peter(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > > > >But like I mentioned it seems that all these directives are sufficient, but > >I am not 100% sure about it, even if this part of code is really functional > >in result NDIS IM driver. In *.cod file are much more directives, I am not so > >good in MASM to know what of these I must to use also in *.asm source file. > > .COD files cannot actually be passed directly into MASM. Unlike gcc, > Visual C++ doesn't create an assembly file and then assemble it. It > creates machine language more or less directly. The .COD files are > generated in a separate step, and are representative of what the MASM would > look like, but manual intervention is required. > -- > - Tim Roberts, timr(a)probo.com > Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
From: Skywing on 12 Jun 2006 18:00 IA64 and x86 are *completely* different architectures - the very design principles behind the two are radically different. Just because it has the "Intel" name on it now doesn't mean it has any relation whatsoever to x86. "Jonathan de Boyne Pollard" <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups(a)NTLWorld.COM> wrote in message news:c1.01.31HK8Z$5AJ(a)J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost... > JdeBP> Why? Even though Windows NT isn't in practice a portable > JdeBP> operating system any more, it still retains all of the capabilities > JdeBP> for being portable across CPU architectures, including the > JdeBP> availability of processor-neutral functions, callable from the > JdeBP> C and C++ languages, for performing all sorts of low-level > JdeBP> things that would on other systems be the purview of assembly > JdeBP> language code. > > MSS> Portable across 3 platforms - x86, x64 and IA64 > > Mars bars are advertized in some localities as containing "glucose, sugar, > and milk". Dieticians read this as "sugar, more sugar, and milk (which > also contains sugar)". Saying that the current version of Windows NT is > "portable across three platforms" is pretty similar. Like the Mars bar > slogan, "x86, x64, and IA64" reads as "Intel architecture, Intel > architecture, and more Intel architecture". In comparison to how portable > Windows NT *used* to be, this is not, in practice, portability, as I said. > It's the Henry Ford version of portability: "You can have any platform > that you like, as long as it's Intel."
From: Vetzak on 13 Jun 2006 11:54
Especially the size of IA64 drivers is completely different: 4-5 times the size of the build for x86. Skywing wrote: > IA64 and x86 are *completely* different architectures - the very design > principles behind the two are radically different. Just because it has the > "Intel" name on it now doesn't mean it has any relation whatsoever to x86. > > "Jonathan de Boyne Pollard" <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups(a)NTLWorld.COM> wrote > in message news:c1.01.31HK8Z$5AJ(a)J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost... > > JdeBP> Why? Even though Windows NT isn't in practice a portable > > JdeBP> operating system any more, it still retains all of the capabilities > > JdeBP> for being portable across CPU architectures, including the > > JdeBP> availability of processor-neutral functions, callable from the > > JdeBP> C and C++ languages, for performing all sorts of low-level > > JdeBP> things that would on other systems be the purview of assembly > > JdeBP> language code. > > > > MSS> Portable across 3 platforms - x86, x64 and IA64 > > > > Mars bars are advertized in some localities as containing "glucose, sugar, > > and milk". Dieticians read this as "sugar, more sugar, and milk (which > > also contains sugar)". Saying that the current version of Windows NT is > > "portable across three platforms" is pretty similar. Like the Mars bar > > slogan, "x86, x64, and IA64" reads as "Intel architecture, Intel > > architecture, and more Intel architecture". In comparison to how portable > > Windows NT *used* to be, this is not, in practice, portability, as I said. > > It's the Henry Ford version of portability: "You can have any platform > > that you like, as long as it's Intel." |