Stephen Frost writes:
Of course it could. Writing an assembler would probably take some
serious effort too without knowing that information. To some extent
that's my point- are we going to require hardware specifications for
anything that uses firmware? Personally I don't think we need to,
People have argued that since there exists open source tools for
editing fonts, font files should be considered their own source, even
if Font Foundries have their own preferred source formats and use
propietary tools to create font files via a compilation process.
But the TrueType files
* D. Starner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
But almost no one, if given a choice of the binary or the assembly language
to edit, would choose the binary. At the very least, the assembly would be
invaluable to deciphering the details of the firmware, and I suspect many
programmers would write a
* D. Starner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not like there's a whole lot of difference between the assembly and
the binary in this case. Write a QD disassembler and extract the
assembly if you want.
Even if we were talking about x86
Stephen Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not like there's a whole lot of difference between the assembly and
the binary in this case. Write a QD disassembler and extract the
assembly if you want.
Even if we were talking about x86 assembly, there would still be a lot
of difference
5 matches
Mail list logo
