🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep6.232408.11684@zooid.guild.org> ross@zooid.guild.org (Ross Ridge) writes:
>ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
[...]
>>First, it seems to me that every compiler and every assembler must have its
>>own idiosyncratic way of producing the executable. Is that true?
>
>For compilers yes, for assemblers no.  With assemblers every byte of
>the execuatable is under the programmers control.

Actually, assemblers have their own way of producing executables, too.
There is a share-ware assembler (I think it is called A86) that even
says that it creates opcodes different from other assemblers.  This
way, the author can sue unregistered owners for not registering.
There are different ways an assembler can create a "fingerprint".
One example is ``MOV BX, AX''.  An assembler can generate either
``89h C3h'' or ``8Bh D8h'' for the opcode (I don't have A86, so I
don't know which opcode set it uses for ``MOV BX, AX'').

Likewise, an assembler can optimize the code for speed and/or size.
For example, I have TASM, which converts a far call into the same
segment into a push cs and near call.

TASM also automatically generates code for you, such as when using
Language modifiers.  For example, you can call a C function from
your ASM program.  TASM will push your parameters (using the C
parameter passing protocol), make the call, then adjust the stack
for you.

[...]


-- 
==== Mike Levis   mlevis@ringer.cs.utsa.edu ====
::   ftp ftp.cs.widener.edu (147.31.254.132)  ::  .--.
::   for ``The Simpsons'' information.  Get   :: (OS/2)
:::: ``Simpsons'' FAQL in dir /pub/simpsons ::::  ~--~