Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT 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: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Williams, Gerald S (Jerry)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Feb 2004 12:50:04.0318 (UTC) FILETIME=[0F84EBE0:01C3F7B0] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id i1KCoJ3Z015988 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/