Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
UASM Assembler Development / Re: Linux support
« Last post by KradMoonRa on Today at 04:55:54 AM »
Hi,

I have stooped for a wile to try to test fPIE and fPIC link asm code, related some bugs found in gcc and clang. In favor for time necessary to get my hands on macros lib's for uasm integration.

Most of the time hasted compiling new releases of the gcc and clang to test the code, and I have get some info that is imperative both or one of the options with gcc or clang (-fPIC or -fPIE) at symbol link-time, to generate correct relocation's tables.

I have get some references about the problem here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/36968287/why-doesnt-gcc-reference-the-plt-for-function-calls, and here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2463150/what-is-the-fpie-option-for-position-independent-executables-in-gcc-and-ld.

I remember that I only succeed to run the PIC test in ubuntu 18 with this gcc command at link time (SharedObjectLinkerName :=/usr/bin/g++ -shared -fPIC), this basically to linker create the addresses for the uasm object functions.

And also using:
SYSTEMV - default call-convention for new linux kernel releases.

And this:
Code: [Select]
option casemap:none
ifndef __x64__
.686P
.model flat
option stackbase:esp ; RSP or RBP are supported options for the stackbase.
else
.X64P
option stackbase:rsp ; RSP or RBP are supported options for the stackbase.
endif
option win64:15 ; 11-15 for RSP and 1-7 for RBP.
option frame:auto
No idea why i'm using this in ubuntu 18, but if I don't declare-it, I get some segment fault error's at runtime.

Not tested fPIE, I think the problem its the same and related to linux kernel standard's, not full implemented in older or bugged compiler's linker's.

2
UASM Assembler Development / Re: Linux support
« Last post by GoneFishing on Today at 03:44:02 AM »
Hello,

(I'm still using 14.04 on my old patephone  and "There's no place in /home" )

My only idea was ( now I've discontinued thinking about it !)  to develop custom linker/loader 
You may stop too
  permanently
  or
  till the happy insight

Cheers!



3
UASM Assembler Development / UASM Planning
« Last post by johnsa on Today at 01:44:09 AM »
Hey all,

Just to let you know there will be a small update to UASM soon, 2.47.2 which includes several encoding+warning fixes.
This will be it for this year.

The plan going forward for UASM is as follows:

2.48) GOT/PLT support + CodeGenV2 #1
2.49) COMDAT Folding improvement + CodeGenV2 #2
2.50) Dwarf debugging support + CodeGenV2 #3

The idea is the new codegen system which will be much easier to maintain and be considerably faster will just plug-in in front of the existing codegen. Any instruction not supported yet will just fall through to the normal codegen so we can implement it incrementally.

Still hoping someone will offer some thoughts on the Linux post I made some time back! :)

4
The Laboratory / Re: Reverse a string - timings please
« Last post by jj2007 on December 12, 2018, 10:34:17 PM »
Console quits as soon as the job is done.
Thanks, Alex. I am used to an editor that waits for a keypress if it doesn't find an Inkey in the source. Workaround: launch the exe from a command prompt.

@Timo: Nice trick :t
5
The Colosseum / Re: Australia es a Lie !!!!!!!!!!
« Last post by hutch-- on December 12, 2018, 08:10:04 PM »
I have always had a problem with "Flat Earthers", anyone who is old enough to use the terminology of the 1960s knows that the world is square.
6
The Laboratory / Re: Reverse a string - timings please
« Last post by TimoVJL on December 12, 2018, 08:08:57 PM »
This may help in Explorer
Code: [Select]
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Classes\*\shell\Open With cmd\command]
@="\"cmd.exe\" \"/k %1\""
7
The Campus / Re: General question
« Last post by AW on December 12, 2018, 06:04:42 PM »
Macros are sort of inline functions, so they contribute to speed sacrificing size.
For beginners, the use of 3rd party macros, no matter how useful they are, is a trade off between learning how to cook our own meals and purchase some fast food in the supermarket.
8
The Campus / Re: General question
« Last post by LordAdef on December 12, 2018, 11:33:29 AM »
Hi lqxpl,

My 2 cents here...
I have limit time to code and sometimes am forced to stay away for a while.

I could be coding in C... But, you know what... I fell in love for MASM.

It's hard, but it is actually simple (in a away) because you deal with straight issues. AND... I always forget the bloody ;;;;;;;;;;;;
Sometimes, the lack of some specific libraries and the hassle to find your way around is a bit of an arse, but that's life. AND.. We have these monsters here at the forum to deal with our stupid questions with a great deal of patience :greenclp: .

I couldn't be happier coding in masm, regardless of everything else.
9
The Laboratory / Re: Reverse a string - timings please
« Last post by LordAdef on December 12, 2018, 11:23:54 AM »

Win10, 64bits.Console quits as soon as the job is done. I paused and copied what I could:
Code: [Select]
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-7700HQ CPU @ 2.80GHz
?yaw retsaf a ereht sI .elddim eht ot gnitareti elihw sretcarahc eht paws ylpmis ot esohc I ,emit CISABkciuQ ym gniruD ?ypoc a gniod tuohtiw gnirts eht esrever ot elbissop ti si tuB .redro esrever ni ypoc a etaerc dna ,gnirts eht hguorht etareti ot eb dluow yaw tselpmis eht ,gnirts )iicsa( a gnisrever ot semoc ti nehW .sucof niam a neeb sah noitalupinam gnirts tsaf CISABkciuQ fo syad dlo eht ecniS

158 ms for reversing a 4000-byte string 100000 times with Rev$() A
153 ms for reversing a 4000-byte string 100000 times with Rev$() A
139 ms for reversing a 4000-byte string 100000 times with Rev$() A
169 ms for reversing a 4000-byte string 100000 times with Rev$() A
159 ms for reversing a 4000-byte string 100000 times with Rev$() A

169 ms for reversing a 4000-byte string 100000 times with Rev$() B
147 ms for reversing a 4000-byte string 100000 times with Rev$() B
184 ms for reversing a 4000-byte string 100000 times with Rev$() B
167 ms for reversing a 4000-byte string 100000 times with Rev$() B
149 ms for reversing a 4000-byte string 100000 times with Rev$() B


317 ms for reversing a 4000-byte string 100000 times with Masm32 rev$()288 ms for reversing a 4000-byte string 100000 times with Masm32 rev$()
372 ms for reversing a 4000-byte string 100000 times with Masm32 rev$()
302 ms for reversing a 4000-byte string 100000 times with Masm32 rev$()
301 ms for reversing a 4000-byte string 100000 times with Masm32 rev$()

68 ms for reversing a 4000-byte string 100000 times with MasmBasic Mirror$()
67 ms for reversing a 4000-byte string 100000 times with MasmBasic Mirror$()
56 ms for reversing a 4000-byte string 100000 times with MasmBasic Mirror$()
67 ms for reversing a 4000-byte string 100000 times with MasmBasic Mirror$()
5
10
The Colosseum / Re: Windows1
« Last post by carlos on December 12, 2018, 10:35:04 AM »

This means that FINALY we will have a "hazardous waste" bin for virus and trojans????
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10