Re: Need help on modifying and assembly of a small program!

From: wolfgang kern (nowhere_at_nevernet.at)
Date: 02/16/05 

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:42:39 +0100

Herbert answered Beth:

> Ah, good...you've put the hex codes next to your Motorola-syntax...I've not
| > downloaded your assembler so that's handy...I can just strip the rest out
| > and then stick some "DB" in front of it all to make a ".com" out of
| > it...then I'll see if it's of any use :)...
 
| I really hope that this doesn't mean, that the 68k syntax is so
| unreadable that you even prefer the hex code (I think this is only
| true for the Intel syntax, therefore I have to assemble and
| disassemble any program Annie posts as A86 source).

I got some experience with Motorola syntax, but for correct interpreting
your notation I'm glad to understand the meaning by looking to the hex-string.

Even if you'd publish a legend for your syntax, I'm afraid not many folks
want to learn 'one more' language.

I think all Asm-coders are familiar with 'the agreed standard' as used
in A86, FASM, NASM, TASM, original MASM and a many more.
RosAsm is a bit different, but w/o any lack on readability.

Whenever I post code-snips I can't expect all readers to understand my
HEX_WORK85-syntax (an attempt to cover Zilog, Motorola, Intel, NS, RCA,
TI, IBM, .. and more CPUs with one 'general set' of mnemonics):

Zilog:
Rw2 = [Rw8+RwC] ; LD BC,[HL+IY]
Rb3 = Rb2 ; LD C,B
X Rw0 ; EX AF,AF'

i64:
Rq9 = ZxD Rd1+8*RdF-55 ; LEA R9,dw[RCX+R15d*8-55h] ;(w/o REXW)
Rq1 = SxB Zpg[Rd0-04] ; MOVSX RCX,byte[EAX-4] ;(with '67' prefix)
 
i32:
J> -00010000 ; JA $-65636 ;optional: "Jncnz"
JS> +08 ; JNLE $+8
CLR Rd2 ; XOR edx,edx
MULAIq S4[Rd5+8] ; IMUL dw DS:[ebp+8] ;(A= accu-form edx:eax)
DIVASb S6[Rd1] ; DIV byte FS:[ecx]

i16:
Rb0 = S2[Rw3+Rb0] ; CS:XLAT

So I just post just almost readable code only.

[HEXEDIT (made for Intel/AMD only) uses a mix of the above,
 while HEXEDIT64 will cover four different main output options by
 default (HEX-WORK85, KESYS-Terse, standard IA and RosAsm)
 and will have the option to use an external interpreter as well]

You see our solutions are similar, except for the operand size cast.
Perhaps you try a standard disassembler for code posts ? :)

__
wolfgang

Relevant Pages

  • Re: a challenge
    ... NASM introduced NASM syntax, yours does not conform. ... It is not a standard and the closest to NASM is FASM. ... > it down to a hidden Assembler, ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: a challenge
    ... > the new Syntax Standards introduced by NASM, ... What new standard is this? ... Other than the three areas above, RosAsm is ... The only assembler I know of that claims to be a "pre-parser" ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: a challenge
    ... > the new Syntax Standards introduced by NASM, ... What new standard is this? ... Other than the three areas above, RosAsm is ... The only assembler I know of that claims to be a "pre-parser" ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: a challenge
    ... > RosAsm's syntax is about as far away from the standard (even if you ... the new Syntax Standards introduced by NASM, but, ... Nobody calls this an Assembler, ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns
    ... couldn't your argument 'similarly' apply to assembler ... >>could certainly just build libraries in assembler yourself ... in some PL (within the standard) itself. ... In other posts of this thread, ...
    (sci.crypt)