Re: .EXE -> .ASM -> .EXE

"randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> écrivait
news:1151082228.697180.122400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Exactly what proof does a "reassembly" provide?
Sure, the result is *syntactically* correct, but it doesn't show that
the result is *semantically* correct.

Exactely, Ass-Hole. When i say 're-compile', i mean hitting
[F6] to give the re-run a try.


E.g., when I ran my "99 Bottles"
program through your disassembler, it disassembled and reassembled
without complaint.

Great. :]]]]]

But if it does not re-run the same way as the original, this
does not mean a thing, ass-hole.


But the insertion of a *single* NOP at the beginning
of the main program broke it (that is, the executable failed to run).

Ah! So, it was re-runing on [F6]! Good.

:))

Ah, you touched it and it was killed! Perfect.

:))

Ergo, your "two click disassembly/reassembly" proves very little about
the quality of the disassembly.

It seems to me i already read such a stupidity, previously,
but i never took any look. Knowing by experience the number
of stupidities you are able to do, i prefer to wait for the
real Assembly users' reports, than to waste any time with a
nerd like you.


Almost every C compiler of interest out there has a "-S" (or similar)
option to emit assembly language output. If you've got the C source
code, then producing *correct* assembly language output is a *very
trivial* operation. Also, the assembly output from a C compiler
generally contains things like the original variable names, function
names, and stuff like that. No need to spend hours analyzing the
result to try and make the result readable.

Then, if it was so easy, Ass-Hole, why didn't you do all of
the job by yourself, instead of letting all of the poor
idiot called "the Win32Asm Pionneers", do painfully all of
this, the so stupid way.

Too bad that, at that time, you were joyfully sleeping on your
past DOS laurels, and never contributed to anything, Ass-Hole.

:]]]]]


Betov.

< http://rosasm.org >


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: .EXE -> .ASM -> .EXE
    ... ass-hole. ... RosAsm disassembler, the resulting source code is not the same as the ... I can insert a NOP into the main program of my ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Im having trouble finding opcodes
    ... Same with any real Assembler, isn't it, ass-hole? ... I also considered the disit disassembler. ... to handle the remaining instructions would increase its size, ... new instructions easily to a disassembler engine, ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Table Driven Disassemblers are Slow?
    ... We will see yours the day you will do soemthing, ass-hole. ... Insults don't change the fact that you're *still* failing to post the ... inappropriate for a disassembler. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Im having trouble finding opcodes
    ... Same with any real Assembler, isn't it, ass-hole? ... I'm talking about a disassembler engine. ... Indeed, PvDasm may be good for writing a book, while ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Im having trouble finding opcodes
    ... disassembler engines available in source code at the time. ... If so, feel free to write one, ass-hole. ... PE Disassembler around, and, now, as long as RosAsm Disassembler ...
    (alt.lang.asm)