Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2003 16:04:29 +0300 (EET DST)
From:	Esa A E Peuha <peuha AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi>
Sender:	peuha AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Bugs in unassmbl.c
In-Reply-To:	<200306231734.h5NHYBjd023462@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
Message-ID:	<Pine.OSF.4.51.0306241355290.12236@sirppi.helsinki.fi>
References:	<200306231734 DOT h5NHYBjd023462 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se wrote:

> I'm far from an expert on ESC opcodes, but this is what I think I've
> understood:
>
> That table is only for when bb != 11.

Yes.

> 0 -> 0x88, 8 -> 0x89, 16 -> 0x8a, etc. I. e. aaa in your description
> above.

Well, yes, but where does this 0x88 come from, and what does it mean?

> > I don't think so, at least not until you explain why your notation is
> > better than the current one.
>
> Did I manage to do that?

Not really.

> Anyway something like your bitwise description would be just as
> fine. Perhaps "11011aaa 11bbbccc, aaaccc == index in table, bbb ==
> register/stack index"?

I don't really see the point.  Anyone who is messing with disassembler
sources should IMHO already know that, or at least know how to figure it
out by reading the code.

-- 
Esa Peuha
student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki
http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/

- Raw text -