Two Click disassembly/reassembly
in [ASM]
|
Prev: Check out POASM
Next: Bad habits
From: T.M. Sommers on 27 Jan 2006 22:00 randyhyde(a)earthlink.net wrote: > Dragontamer wrote: > >>Why hasn't big-endian vs little-endian been brought up yet? > > As I've mentioned in other posts, the list of problems why a conversion > won't work is *nearly* endless. Is that big-endless or little-endless? -- Thomas M. Sommers -- tms(a)nj.net -- AB2SB
From: Annie on 28 Jan 2006 03:18 On 2006-01-27 Randy Hyde said: > Betov wrote: > > > but do not hope that i will even take any look at it: > > did not read your insanities, and i will neither take any > > look at your File. > > No doubt, you won't. It's like the symbol table bug in your > assembler that you've been insisting is not a bug for the past > couple of years. Ignore the problems all you want. It's your > product. If you don't mind the fact that people will decide it's a > low-quality product because you refuse to fix bugs in it, that's > your choice. _____ Good grief, Randy...are you ((( `\ still whipping this dead _ _`\ ) horse? You've been told (^ ) ) repeatedly how to overcome ~-( ) the so-called symbol table _'((,,,))) 'bug.' ,-' \_/ `\ ( , | RosASM isn't MA$M. You can't `-.-'`-.-'/|_| logically expect it to behave \ / | | in the same way as MA$M. =()=: / ,' aa What kind of idiot would attempt to assemble ONLY a symbol table, anyway? You're being deliberately obtuse on this subject, Rand-o...and that's totally disingenuous of you. If you were still a university lecturer, we'd have to rescind your tenure. Hehehe!
From: Betov on 28 Jan 2006 04:01 Frank Kotler <fbkotler(a)comcast.net> ?crivait news:KPGdnSZVoIvjAEfenZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d(a)comcast.com: > Thus, a "Nasm victim" may interpret the above > code differently than was intended... :]]]]]] :)) ;) Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 28 Jan 2006 08:23 "randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> ?crivait news:1137780064.562988.229450(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > Rene has been making a big deal about how the RosAsm system can > disassemble an executable file and then reassemble it with only two > clicks. Instead of planing to write one another Pdf about "Art of Disassembly", i have found a new idea that would match way better with your level of competency. May i propose you a new title: "How to write failing Code -for nerds, in ten lessons-". Given your expertise, in this area, i am sure that it would be a great success. :) Betov. < http://rosasm.org > PS. The Title "Art of Disassembly" already exists. Too bad for you, but it is one of the many Anti-Gpl Projects started after the release of RosAsm Two-Clicks Disassembler- Reassembler got noticed... devoted to MASM, this time. :))) A very funny one, -showing at what extend the guys may fail to understand the problems,...- that will, as well as the other ones, go nicely to the same deserved trash-bin as PvDasm. :)
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 30 Jan 2006 11:59
Charles A. Crayne wrote: > On 27 Jan 2006 11:38:47 -0800 > "randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > :I am obviously a bit more aware of the problems than either you or Rene > :with respect to this conversion process. > > What seems obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to others. For > example, from my point of view, I consider it obvious that you are, as the > old saying goes, "trying to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs". > However, the important thing to keep in mind is that our audience deserves > more than just a "because I say so response". Chuck, how much time have you put into studying this problem? Obviously not a whole lot. I've actually spent a little bit of time looking into how to do this type of conversion. But you don't have to believe *me* when I say this is a difficult problem -- DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF! I'm not at all saying "because I say so." I'm saying "I've looked into this problem and you, obviously, have not." That makes my opinions on the subject a little bit more educated than your's. You don't have to take my word for it, DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF. Thus far, the only rebuttal you're offering is "what makes it true because you say it is?" Again, DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF. If you're unwilling to do the research yourself, then it's probably wise to accept the opinions of those who *have* looked into the problem rather than posting counter claims on the basis of prejudice. Now if you want *me* to do the research or you, I'll be more than happy to do so for my standard consulting fee. I've told you, based on my own research, that this code conversion is a difficult process. You seem to disagree, even though it's clear to someone who *has* done a bit of research on this subject that you don't have a clue about the problems associated with the conversion. Effectively, you're behaving just like Rene now -- arguing in a contrary nature just to be arguing, rather than trying to seek the truth. No offense, but I thought you were a bit more respectable than that. Cheers, Randy Hyde |