Xref: utzoo comp.arch:6922 comp.lang.c:13661 comp.lang.misc:2065 Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!stc!idec!marlow!fox From: fox@marlow.uucp (Paul Fox) Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Universal Disassemblers vs. Universal MIILs Message-ID: <474@alice.marlow.uucp> Date: 24 Oct 88 22:15:12 GMT Article-I.D.: alice.474 References: <358@istop.ist.co.uk> <7226@ihlpl.att.com> eric@snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) writes: >In article <7226@ihlpl.att.com>, knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: >>In article , I write: > >P.S. on the Cracker concept: > >Does anyone know of something like this having been actually implemented? > Yes - I did this once. It was for Z-80 machine code, and I did it for a Z-80 ICE for which I needed to extend its functionality. It was pretty easy, and it was command line driven. (You would create shell scripts containing the long command lines). It allowed you to do things like specify what the RST instructions were for, and allowed things like having some of the RST instructions being followed by a byte of sub-opcode; It allowed you to add labels (although not comments for particular lines). Thus as you understood what parts of the code were doing you could tell it the labels to use, and any references to that address would come out symbolically. Also, since its diffcult to make the machine decide whether something is code or data, it allowed you to mark selected areas as being tables and thus avoid disassembling it. ===================== // o All opinions are my own. (O) ( ) The powers that be ... / \_____( ) o \ | /\____\__/ Tel: +44 628 891313 x. 212 _/_/ _/_/ UUCP: fox@marlow.uucp