On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 16:07:15 -0600 Tony Harminc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 13:43:23 -0600, Roland Schiradin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :>>doesn't make sense to me. If an instruction exists in the code the disassembler :>>should decode them based on the latest level of possible opcodes. Why would :>>you limit this? :>It's useful to limit the opcodes understood, because the disassembler (any :>disassembler for this architecture - not just IBM's) is less than perfect at :>understanding what is code and what is data. If you know something about the :>module you are working on (typically it is some legacy lost-source thing :>written some time ago), then it is better to have things that could not be :>code in that particular module shown as data rather than bogus instructions. :>ASMDASM does allow you to tell it that an area is code-only or data-only, :>but often enough you don't know that in detail early in the disassembling :>process, and it helps not to have your work cluttered with instructions that :>could not have been intended in, say, 1987. :>To this end it would also be useful to be able to have privileged :>instructions ignored. Well put. Also, if you know that there ain't no floating point, no ESA, no Z, etc. etc. -- Binyamin Dissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
