Two Click disassembly/reassembly
in [ASM]
|
Prev: Check out POASM
Next: Bad habits
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 23 Jan 2006 12:13 Betov wrote: > Frank Kotler <fbkotler(a)comcast.net> écrivait > news:MMudnQUH6__prEneRVn-gg(a)comcast.com: > > > Assembly is generally considered not portable - and we *can't* do > > non-x86... > > Wrong. There is nothing making it impossible, for an > Assembler, to have as many Encoders inside as you want, > and to _translate_ the x86 OpCodes, into replacements > (when not equivalent) substitutes. So says the guy who writes "specific assemblers" and is complaining that no one has written a portable set of native code generators because he's finally figuring out that people *want* to be able to use object code on other OSes besides Windows. > > Of course, the substituted outputs would no more be > true Assembly, but the original would remain Assembly. > What do you think magic, in HLLs? The fact that you translate the code into something other than x86 machine code does not change the fact that the original source language is x86 *assembly language*. It is quite obvious that you don't understand the difference between a source language and the actual code generated by a specific compiler implementation (based on a couple years observation of your remarks around here). Play the expert all you want, but until you figure out the difference between a language and an implementation of a language, you're going to continue to have some serious misconceptions about what is and what is not an assembly language. Cheers, Randy Hyde P.S., getting back on topic, have you fixed the bug in your disassembler yet? It's been a couple of days now. And you constantly brag about how you fix problems in just a few minutes. Is there a new version posted yet?
From: Frank Kotler on 23 Jan 2006 19:12 randyhyde(a)earthlink.net wrote: .... > Hmm... > I'll have to back up a version in HLA (so I'm using the same version > most people are rather than the latest development version) and see if > your problems are due to several defects I've corrected in the latest > version. No need to revert to older versions. If the new stuff works properly, we can wait for it. > I wanted to finish the STL and TERMINAL class libraries before > the next release of HLA, Paul Panks "improved" his game by adding rooms and quests, when he arguably should have "tightened up" the code first. Be careful you don't make the same mistake. > but I may need to put out a new version just > to get the current bug fixes out there. Or post a "diff", and those of us who care about a "cutting edge" version can build it on our own (now that Bison is up to your needs). If you had the code on a CVS (or other version control system) server accessable to the public... well, we've discussed that... > Then again, I suspect you're compiling under Linux Yes. > (based on the > command line above) and I've not tested this code under Linux in a > couple of months. I've really got to get my new Linux box functional so > I can test the new code under Linux again. Judging from the fact that the only complaints you're getting are from a "non-user" of hla, this may not be your highest priority. I realize you've got a lot of plates in the air. I'm disappointed to see the number of people who can't quite get their Linux boxes running, but that seems to be the situation. So... thanks for getting to it when you get to it! Best, Frank
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 23 Jan 2006 19:36 Frank Kotler wrote: > > Judging from the fact that the only complaints you're getting are from a > "non-user" of hla, this may not be your highest priority. I realize > you've got a lot of plates in the air. I'm disappointed to see the > number of people who can't quite get their Linux boxes running, but that > seems to be the situation. So... thanks for getting to it when you get > to it! A defect is a defect. It doesn't matter *who* found it. When someone else is nice enough to find the bugs in your code, I count that as less work I've got to do and I thank them :-) Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: o///annabee on 24 Jan 2006 01:16 P? Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:21:14 +0000 (UTC), skrev Alex McDonald <alex_mcd(a)btopenworld.com>: > Then use an HLL, and stop talking junk. Really, you're blind to reason > on the subject of portability. You whole post here is missing a detail. If you can write a HLL to compile the same logic on two plattforms you certainly can do the same with an assembler. This is so painfully obvious it hurts that Betov seems to be the only one to see it. Then it really does not matter if the one plattform is offering less flags or whatever. If the HLL version works, then the asm version will work better. Simple as that.
From: Frank Kotler on 24 Jan 2006 01:58
\\\o///annabee wrote: .... > If you can write a HLL to compile the same logic on two plattforms you > certainly can do the same with an assembler. Define "assembler" such that this is true. > This is so painfully > obvious it hurts that Betov seems to be the only one to see it. Betov is the only one who sees a *lot* of things! In this case, there *was* one... some time ago... responsible for the creation of clax, in fact. > Then it really does not matter if the one plattform is offering less > flags or whatever. If the HLL version works, then the asm version will > work better. What "asm" version??? What Betov proposes is to stuff an assembler and a compiler into one executable. The "non-x86" output of such a contraption is in no way "assembly", in my book. > Simple as that. Funny no one has done it. Perhaps they lack Betov's "vision"... Best, Frank |