Re: Two Click disassembly/reassembly

Betov wrote:
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.

Are there equivalents? ...in this hypothetical non-x86 machine? (if so, what makes it non-x86?)

Of course, the substituted outputs would no more be
true Assembly,


End of story.

but the original would remain Assembly. 

How do you figure that? It no longer represents machine instructions.

What do you think magic, in HLLs?

No magic. Different assembly languages for different processors. Take a look in your /usr/src/linux/arch directory... never mind, you haven't got one...

If you believe in portable (across architectures) assembly, I'll see if I can dig up Scot Nudds' address. You can correspond with him.

Best,
Frank
.

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 ... the substituted outputs would no more be ...
    (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)