 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/8/2010 3:31 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> (Unless, of course, you're working with a language which actually has
> built-in support for calling DLLs. Then presumably it *is* trivial.)
>
Any language that uses the pascal calling convention or allows the use
of the pascal calling convention has built in support for calling at
least the system DLL's (results may vary with others, especially C++
dlls that use name mangling and thiscall calling convention. But, if you
can emit machine code, you're golden. ;) Just load ECX or RCX with the
target's address push the arguments on the stack (in the proper order)
and you're golden. ;)
>> So long as your language allows you to set up a block of data with the
>> common data types it shouldn't be at all tricky.
>
> Heh, right.
>
> I still think recording a few keypresses and doing some statistics on
> them is way, way simpler.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (Unless, of course, you're working with a language which actually has
>> built-in support for calling DLLs. Then presumably it *is* trivial.)
>
> Any language that uses the pascal calling convention or allows the use
> of the pascal calling convention has built in support for calling at
> least the system DLL's.
Dude, that's like saying...
> But, if you can emit machine code, you're golden. ;)
...oh god.
Hey, you know there are people who solved the Project Euler problems
using only assembly, right? :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/8/2010 7:41 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Hey, you know there are people who solved the Project Euler problems
> using only assembly, right? :-P
I'm sure there are... Say! That sounds like a really fun challenge!
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/8/2010 7:29 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Oh, wait - you'd need a hex editor to do that...
>>
>> I hear there's a nice one coming out ... some time. Written by a
>> member of this newsgroup, too!
>
> Yeah, there is. Just as soon as I finish writing it. :-P
You're writing one, to? Et tu, Andy?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/8/2010 7:30 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> Ludicrously difficult is programming in machine code for a processor
>> that doesn't yet exist's micro-ops. ;)
>
> That depends on how complex the processor is, now doesn't it? ;-)
I suppose, but it makes debugging a royal PITA either way ;)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> Oh, wait - you'd need a hex editor to do that...
>>>
>>> I hear there's a nice one coming out ... some time. Written by a
>>> member of this newsgroup, too!
>>
>> Yeah, there is. Just as soon as I finish writing it. :-P
>
> You're writing one, to? Et tu, Andy?
I had a go at writing one, and eventually gave up.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Ludicrously difficult is programming in machine code for a processor
>>> that doesn't yet exist's micro-ops. ;)
>>
>> That depends on how complex the processor is, now doesn't it? ;-)
>
> I suppose, but it makes debugging a royal PITA either way ;)
Again, depends how complex. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/8/2010 8:16 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Again, depends how complex. ;-)
OK, How about this one. Coding x86 Machine Language with no assembler.
That's difficult ;)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 6/8/2010 8:16 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
>> Again, depends how complex. ;-)
>
> OK, How about this one. Coding x86 Machine Language with no assembler.
> That's difficult ;)
Hell yes. But that's because the x86 system has become ridiculously
over-complicated with decades' worth of backwards-compatibility crap.
(E.g., real-mode exists, even though most desktops spend less than 0.01%
percent of their time running in this mode.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/8/2010 8:16 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> > Again, depends how complex. ;-)
>
> OK, How about this one. Coding x86 Machine Language with no assembler.
> That's difficult ;)
At least you only need 3 keys on your keyboard ;-)
http://homepages.strath.ac.uk/~cjbs17/computing/binary.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
