Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: Mateusz Viste On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 04:39:35 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: > It worked fine (redirecting) for me yesterday! I can't imagine why it > wouldn't work for you. > > Oh, before I forget, are you perhaps invoking NDISASM via some .BAT? > Of course a .BAT doesn't

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: Mateusz Viste On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 02:03:54 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: > AFAIK, the longer one is 386+ only, hence not available with "cpu 8086". The above code assembles with "cpu 8086" (NASM 2.12.02). > Thus, if it still quietly assembles, that is a bug (but I

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: Jerome Shidel Less than 256 bytes of code. Over 2 Megabytes of controversy. Shame on you Mateusz! :-) All joking aside, from what I gather, your bsum is only meant to verify local files were copied correctly from one machine to another. Most forms of checksums should

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: Rugxulo Hi, On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote: > On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 22:24:56 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: > >> What disassembler are you using here? I erroneously thought it was NDISASM. > > I don't use ndisasm for a very trivial

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: "Bret Johnson" > I double-checked, latest NDISASM still decodes as two separate instructions. A disassembler would not report two separate instructions unless the actual compiled code had two separate instructions. Every assembler/compiler I know of does little

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: Tom Ehlert >>> Unless I'm mistaken, conditional jumps on 8086 don't go beyond -128 .. >>> 127 (signed) byte range. Hence the billions of workarounds (TASM >>> "jumps", MASM "option ljmp", etc). right. >> I won't argue about what opcode is or is not available on

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: Mateusz Viste Hi Tom, That's nice of you to provide the explanation. I didn't read it completely (too lazy), nor understand it fully (too stupid), but the other clueless guy might find it interesting that he was only half wrong. At the end of the day, I will keep

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: dmccunney On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:56:17 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: > >> Splurge on the memory, give it 32 kb or so. It'll "probably" be faster >> with a bigger buffer. > > At the cost of

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: Rugxulo Hi, On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote: > > That's nice of you to provide the explanation. I didn't read it > completely (too lazy), nor understand it fully (too stupid), but the > other clueless guy might find it

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: Mateusz Viste On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:57:59 -0400, dmccunney wrote: > I have to ask. How many folks *have* platforms now it *wouldn't* run > on? I suspect the number is *very* small. Surely, yes. Still, a 700% memory increase for a 10% performance boost just

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: Mateusz Viste On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:07:30 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: > Blair's (16-bit, FD) MD5SUM can do all of those hashes as well. Not sure > if it'd be faster, though. I believe that's the one I used. If I understand correctly, the original author is Colin Plumb,

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: Rugxulo Hi again, On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:56:17 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: >> >> It would be interesting to see some benchmark numbers for that (for >> various specific tools, 8086, 386, etc). >

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: Rugxulo Hi, On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Mateusz Viste wrote: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:07:30 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: > >> irrelevant "jz short ..." (when "short" conditional jump is always >> mandatory for "cpu 8086"). > > I don't think so. >

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: Mateusz Viste On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 23:30:35 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: > Unless I'm mistaken, conditional jumps on 8086 don't go beyond -128 .. > 127 (signed) byte range. Hence the billions of workarounds (TASM > "jumps", MASM "option ljmp", etc). I won't argue about

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: Mateusz Viste I have to clarify here that my intention was never to compete in any way with the other algorithms out there. The BSD checksum is a well-known, and pretty weak (16 bits) checksum. The goal behind bsum was only to obtain a checksum tool that would run

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: Mateusz Viste On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 02:52:06 +, Mateusz Viste wrote: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:07:30 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: >> Converting hex nibble to ASCII shouldn't need a jump at all. On the >> 8086 all jumps are very slow. Best to avoid them entirely if

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: Dale E Sterner Would you or anyone else know if there is an 802.11 client for dos? Never heard of one but you guys know alot more than I ever will. cheers DS On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:36:24 + (UTC) Mateusz Viste writes: > On Mon, 10 Apr

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: Rugxulo Hi, I haven't tried this (yet), but nice work! On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Mateusz Viste wrote: > > I needed to verify the integrity of a few files after transferring them > to/from my 8086 PC the other day. The obvious method for

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: Mateusz Viste On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:56:17 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: > It would be interesting to see some benchmark numbers for that (for > various specific tools, 8086, 386, etc). Just for the fun of it, I did some quick measures on my 386SX PC, computing various

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

From: Ralf Quint On 4/10/2017 6:36 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:56:17 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: >> It would be interesting to see some benchmark numbers for that (for >> various specific tools, 8086, 386, etc). > Just for the fun of it, I did some quick

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 04:39:35 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: > It worked fine (redirecting) for me yesterday! I can't imagine why it > wouldn't work for you. > > Oh, before I forget, are you perhaps invoking NDISASM via some .BAT? > Of course a .BAT doesn't really redirect (under FreeCOM) without kludge, >

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

> I double-checked, latest NDISASM still decodes as two separate instructions. A disassembler would not report two separate instructions unless the actual compiled code had two separate instructions. Every assembler/compiler I know of does little "tricks" to make the programmer's job a little

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

Hi, On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote: > On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 22:24:56 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: > >> What disassembler are you using here? I erroneously thought it was NDISASM. > > I don't use ndisasm for a very trivial reason - I am unable to redirect >

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 22:24:56 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: > My problem with always explicitly saying "short" is that it's both > unnecessary and verbose. Apparently not so "unnecessary" after all, if one really wants to use a short jump, and not some other contraption. > What disassembler are you

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

Hi, On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote: > > That's nice of you to provide the explanation. I didn't read it > completely (too lazy), nor understand it fully (too stupid), but the > other clueless guy might find it interesting that he was only half

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

Less than 256 bytes of code. Over 2 Megabytes of controversy. Shame on you Mateusz! :-) All joking aside, from what I gather, your bsum is only meant to verify local files were copied correctly from one machine to another. Most forms of checksums should be sufficient for that task. Sure a

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

Hi Tom, That's nice of you to provide the explanation. I didn't read it completely (too lazy), nor understand it fully (too stupid), but the other clueless guy might find it interesting that he was only half wrong. At the end of the day, I will keep using "JZ SHORT" anyway, 'cause that just

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

>>> Unless I'm mistaken, conditional jumps on 8086 don't go beyond -128 .. >>> 127 (signed) byte range. Hence the billions of workarounds (TASM >>> "jumps", MASM "option ljmp", etc). right. >> I won't argue about what opcode is or is not available on 8086, since I >> did not bother decoding their

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 02:03:54 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: > AFAIK, the longer one is 386+ only, hence not available with "cpu 8086". The above code assembles with "cpu 8086" (NASM 2.12.02). > Thus, if it still quietly assembles, that is a bug (but I thought that > was long-ago fixed/avoided). Perhaps

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

Hi, On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 23:30:35 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: >> >> Unless I'm mistaken, conditional jumps on 8086 don't go beyond -128 .. >> 127 (signed) byte range. Hence the billions of workarounds (TASM >> "jumps",

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 23:30:35 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: > Unless I'm mistaken, conditional jumps on 8086 don't go beyond -128 .. > 127 (signed) byte range. Hence the billions of workarounds (TASM > "jumps", MASM "option ljmp", etc). I won't argue about what opcode is or is not available on 8086, since

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

Hi, On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Mateusz Viste wrote: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:07:30 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: > >> irrelevant "jz short ..." (when "short" conditional jump is always >> mandatory for "cpu 8086"). > > I don't think so. > Note that short means "8 bit jump"

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

I have to clarify here that my intention was never to compete in any way with the other algorithms out there. The BSD checksum is a well-known, and pretty weak (16 bits) checksum. The goal behind bsum was only to obtain a checksum tool that would run on my 8086 fast enough for me to not get

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 02:52:06 +, Mateusz Viste wrote: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:07:30 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: >> Converting hex nibble to ASCII shouldn't need a jump at all. On the >> 8086 all jumps are very slow. Best to avoid them entirely if possible. >> Here you can easily use the old "cmp al,

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:07:30 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: > Blair's (16-bit, FD) MD5SUM can do all of those hashes as well. Not sure > if it'd be faster, though. I believe that's the one I used. If I understand correctly, the original author is Colin Plumb, and Blair took the maintenance of it at some

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:57:59 -0400, dmccunney wrote: > I have to ask. How many folks *have* platforms now it *wouldn't* run > on? I suspect the number is *very* small. Surely, yes. Still, a 700% memory increase for a 10% performance boost just doesn't feel right. I wrote bsum to cover an

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

Hi again, On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:56:17 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: >> >> It would be interesting to see some benchmark numbers for that (for >> various specific tools, 8086, 386, etc). > > Just for the fun of it, I did

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

Would you or anyone else know if there is an 802.11 client for dos? Never heard of one but you guys know alot more than I ever will. cheers DS On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:36:24 + (UTC) Mateusz Viste writes: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:56:17 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: > > It

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:56:17 -0500, Rugxulo wrote: > It would be interesting to see some benchmark numbers for that (for > various specific tools, 8086, 386, etc). Just for the fun of it, I did some quick measures on my 386SX PC, computing various checksums of a 2 MiB file. Results below. BSUM

Re: [Freedos-user] bsum - compute BSD checksums of your files

Hi, I haven't tried this (yet), but nice work! On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Mateusz Viste wrote: > > I needed to verify the integrity of a few files after transferring them > to/from my 8086 PC the other day. The obvious method for such task is > computing a checksum