Re: Two Click disassembly/reassembly

Frank Kotler <fbkotler@xxxxxxxxxxx> écrivait
news:MMudnQUH6__prEneRVn-gg@xxxxxxxxxxx:

> 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.

Of course, the substituted outputs would no more be
true Assembly, but the original would remain Assembly.
What do you think magic, in HLLs?


Betov.

< http://rosasm.org >



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Two Click disassembly/reassembly
    ... Assembler, to have as many Encoders inside as you want, and to _translate_ the x86 OpCodes, into replacements substitutes. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Machine code summary
    ... > I have decades of experience with mainframe assembler, ... That's probably a better place to start than disassembling by hand. ... The x86 opcodes are fairly complex, and even having spent a significant ... are there tools to map an EXE file? ...
    (comp.lang.asm.x86)
  • Re: Two Click disassembly/reassembly
    ... > Assembler, to have as many Encoders inside as you want, ... > and to _translate_ the x86 OpCodes, ... So translating x86 opcodes would be, ... The better way is to have a set of front and back ends, each for a CPU ...
    (alt.lang.asm)