Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Subject: RE: Assembler
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 07:50:04 -0500
Message-ID: <AE2AA130827456459AA497E8C9D6EA00412C65@pauex2ku02.agere.com>
From: "Williams, Gerald S (Jerry)" <gsw@agere.com>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Krzysztof Duleba wrote:
> I gave up. I see no chance to compile Line at all. And even 
> if I succeed, Line will probably bail out.

Yes, I noticed that LINE was a dead project after you
mentioned that you were trying to recompile it. I was
hoping you would have success, since it sounded like
a worthwhile project.

Either way, by trying to get LINE working, you should
now have a better idea what it would take to create a
system that emulates int 0x80 syscalls.

> However, my own code already can change int 0x80-like
> system calls to appropriate function calls [...]

This is more efficient anyway, since the int 0x80 traps
would probably be making the same calls anyway.

> I wanted to try out my app with some deassembler, but
> I haven't found anything interesting. Which one do you
> use (in Linux)?

I don't do much X86 disassembling (most of my assembly
coding is in ARM or DSP), but I would start with ndisasm
(the nasm disassembler).

-Jerry

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/