Search Results

Search found 21 results on 1 pages for 'pindatjuh'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • x86 CMP Instruction Difference

    - by Pindatjuh
    Question What is the (non-trivial) difference between the following two x86 instructions? 39 /r CMP r/m32,r32 Compare r32 with r/m32 3B /r CMP r32,r/m32 Compare r/m32 with r32 Background I'm building a Java assembler, which will be used by my compiler's intermediate language to produce Windows-32 executables. Currently I have following code: final ModelBase mb = new ModelBase(); // create new memory model mb.addCode(new Compare(Register.ECX, Register.EAX)); // add code mb.addCode(new Compare(Register.EAX, Register.ECX)); // add code final FileOutputStream fos = new FileOutputStream(new File("test.exe")); mb.writeToFile(fos); fos.close(); To output a valid executable file, which contains two CMP instruction in a TEXT-section. The executable outputted to "text.exe" will do nothing interesting, but that's not the point. The class Compare is a wrapper around the CMP instruction. The above code produces (inspecting with OllyDbg): Address Hex dump Command 0040101F |. 3BC8 CMP ECX,EAX 00401021 |. 3BC1 CMP EAX,ECX The difference is subtle: if I use the 39 byte-opcode: Address Hex dump Command 0040101F |. 39C1 CMP ECX,EAX 00401021 |. 39C8 CMP EAX,ECX Which makes me wonder about their synonymity and why this even exists.

    Read the article

  • Universal Turing Machine Problems

    - by Pindatjuh
    If I have a machine, call it machine 1, that is able to solve a problem: it's just a machine, not persé a Turing machine. It can solve one specific problem. If this exact same problem can be solved on a Universal Turing Machine, then is my original machine, 1, a Universal Turing Machine too? This does not hold for all problems, which is already ansered. Are there any problems which have this described property at all? If it is absolutely not true, then why? Can someone give an example of a problem to be solved. If this problem is solved by my original machine, 1, definately makes this a Universal Turning Machine? Or does such a problem not exists? If it doesn't exists, why? I'm very interested, but can't figure it out... Thanks. Edit: made the question more clear.

    Read the article

  • Why is my PE file invalid?

    - by Pindatjuh
    I already asked a similar question, "PE Header requirements", but I'm not really satisfied with it's answer. I am building an assembler/linker, in Java SE 1.6. I have read about 5 different documentations/specifications about the PE/COFF header and file format, but I'm stuck at a problem: My generated file is not valid, says Windows: "X is not a valid Win32 application." I'm clueless of what can be wrong; I have double-checked every entry in the PE Header and PE Optional Header, and all seems to be right. I've got four sections: code (RVA 0x1000, File 0x400) data (RVA 0x2000, File 0x600) import (RVA 0x3000, File 0x800) reloc (RVA 0x4000, File 0xA00) My entrypoint value is at 0x1000 (the beginning of code) and my imagebase is 0x400000. Section alignment is 0x1000 and file alignment is 0x200. Here is the file (3 kb): 4D 5A 6C 00 01 00 00 00 04 00 11 00 FF FF 03 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 70 00 00 00 0E 1F BA 0E 00 B4 09 CD 21 B8 00 4C CD 21 54 68 69 73 20 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 20 72 65 71 75 69 72 65 73 20 57 69 6E 33 32 0D 0A 24 00 00 00 00 50 45 00 00 4C 01 04 00 6A C4 4D 69 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 E0 00 02 01 0B 01 08 00 00 10 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 20 00 00 00 00 40 00 00 10 00 00 00 02 00 00 04 00 00 00 0D 00 25 00 04 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 04 0A 00 00 00 04 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 04 00 00 10 01 00 00 00 10 00 00 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 30 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 2E 63 6F 64 65 00 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 10 00 00 23 00 00 00 00 04 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 20 00 00 60 2E 64 61 74 61 00 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 20 00 00 23 00 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 00 C0 2E 69 6D 70 6F 72 74 00 00 10 00 00 00 30 00 00 90 00 00 00 00 08 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 00 50 2E 72 65 6C 6F 63 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 40 00 00 04 00 00 00 00 0A 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 00 52 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 68 00 00 00 00 68 0D 20 40 00 68 00 20 40 00 68 00 00 00 00 E8 64 30 40 00 68 00 00 00 00 E8 6C 30 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 48 65 6C 6C 6F 20 57 6F 72 6C 64 21 00 48 65 6C 6C 6F 20 53 74 61 63 6B 20 4F 76 65 72 66 6C 6F 77 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 54 30 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 3C 30 00 00 64 30 00 00 5C 30 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 47 30 00 00 6C 30 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 75 73 65 72 33 32 2E 64 6C 6C 00 6B 65 72 6E 65 6C 33 32 2E 64 6C 6C 00 74 30 00 00 00 00 00 00 82 30 00 00 00 00 00 00 74 30 00 00 00 00 00 00 82 30 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 4D 65 73 73 61 67 65 42 6F 78 41 00 00 00 45 78 69 74 50 72 6F 63 65 73 73 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 74 65 73 74 So: I grabbed a valid PE file (a simple "Hello World" message box application), and started to modify it, with a hex-editor (HxD). I got a lot of different error messages, not the "X is not a valid Win32 application.": I'm aware that my code content is not "valid" code, but I've tested it out: invalid code gives an Application Crash error. If the import-section content is invalid in the "Hello World" PE file, it gives me the error "Procedure point cannot be found in [...]", or "Application has failed to start because [..] dll is not found.", or an Application Crash. These errors are all very useful; they all give me some clue what was wrong. But my PE file, with the error "X is not a valid Win32 application.", drives me insane: What is wrong with my PE file?

    Read the article

  • PE Header Requirements

    - by Pindatjuh
    What are the requirements of a PE file (PE/COFF)? What fields should be set, which value, at a bare minimum for enabling it to "run" on Windows (i.e. executing "ret" instruction and then close, without error). The library I am building first is the linker: Now, the problem I have is the PE file (PE/COFF). I don't know what is "required" for a PE file before it can actually execute on my platform. My testing platform is Vista. I get an error message, saying "This is not a valid Win32 executable." when I execute it by double-clicking, and I get an "Access Denied." when executing it with CLI cmd. I have two sections, .text and .data. I've implemented the PE headers as provided by several online documents, i.e. MSDN and some other thirdparty documentation. If I use a hex-editor, it looks almost like a regular PE file. I don't use any imports, nor IAT, nor any directories in the PE header. Edit: I've added an import table, still not a valid .exe-file, says my Windows. I've tried to use values which are also mentioned at the smallest PE-file guide. No luck. Really the only thing I can't seem to figure out is what is required and what isn't. Some guides tell me everything is required, whilst others say about deprications: and it can be zero. I hope this is enough information. Thank you, in advance. Raw data (as requested) of current PE header: 4D 5A 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 00 00 50 45 00 00 4C 01 02 00 C8 7A 55 4B 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 E0 00 82 01 0B 01 0D 25 00 10 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 20 00 00 00 00 40 00 00 10 00 00 00 02 00 00 01 00 0B 00 00 00 00 00 03 00 0A 00 00 00 00 00 00 22 00 00 38 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 00 40 00 00 00 40 00 00 00 40 00 00 00 40 00 00 00 00 00 00 0E 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 20 00 00 24 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 2E 74 65 78 74 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 20 00 00 60 2E 69 64 61 74 61 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 20 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 04 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 00 C0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 3C 20 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 24 20 00 00 34 20 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 4B 45 52 4E 45 4C 33 32 2E 64 6C 6C 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 80 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 80 00 00 00 00

    Read the article

  • Is this way of storing typed objects in memory good?

    - by Pindatjuh
    This is an "is this okay, or can it be done better" question. Topic: Storing typed objects in memory. Background information: I'm building a compiler for the x86-32 platform for my language. My goal includes typed objects. Idea: Every primitive is a semi-class (it can be used as if it was a normal class, but it's stored more compact). Every class is represented by primitives and some meta-data (containing class-properties, inheritance stuff, etc.). The meta-data is complex: it doesn't use fields but instead context-switches. For primitives, the meta-data is very small, compared to a "real" class, which is alot bigger. This enables another idea that "primitives are objects", in my language, which I found nessecairy. Example: If I have an array of 32 booleans, then the pure content of this array is exactly 4 byte (32 bits of booleans). The meta-data will contain flags that the type is an array of booleans, which contains 32 entries. The meta-data is very compacted, on bit-level: using a sort of "packing" mechanism, which is read by a FSM at runtime, when doing inspection of the type (like when passing the object to methods for checking, etc.) For instance (read from left to right, top to bottom, remember vertical possition when going to the right, and check nearest column header for meaning of switch): Primitive? Array? Type-Meta 1 Byte? || Size (1 byte) 1 1 [...] 1 [...] done 0 2 Bytes? || Size (2 bytes) 1 [...] done || Size (4 bytes) 0 [...] done Integer? 1 Byte? 2 Bytes? 0 1 0 1 done 1 done 0 done Boolean? Byte? 0 1 0 done 1 done More-Primitives 0 .... Class-Stuff (Huge) 0 ... (After reaching done the data is inserted. || = byte alignement. [...] is variable sized. ... is not described here, for simplicity. And let's call them cost-based-data-structures.) For an array of 32 booleans containing all true values, the memory for this type would be (read top-down): 1 Primitive 1 Array 1 ArrayType: Primitive 0 Not-Array 0 Not-Integer 1 Boolean 0 Not-Byte (thus bit) 1 Integer Size: 1 Byte 00100000 Array size 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 Data Thus, 8 bytes represent 32 booleans in an array: 11100101 00100000 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 Is this okay, or can it be done better?

    Read the article

  • How is a relative JMP (x86) implemented in an Assembler?

    - by Pindatjuh
    While building my assembler for the x86 platform I encountered some problems with encoding the JMP instruction: enc inst size in bytes EB cb JMP rel8 2 E9 cw JMP rel16 4 (because of 0x66 16-bit prefix) E9 cd JMP rel32 5 ... (from my favourite x86 instruction website, http://siyobik.info/index.php?module=x86&id=147) All are relative jumps, where the size of each encoding (operation + operand) is in the third column. Now my original (and thus fault because of this) design reserved the maximum (5 bytes) space for each instruction. The operand is not yet known, because it's a jump to a yet unknown location. So I've implemented a "rewrite" mechanism, that rewrites the operands in the correct location in memory, if the location of the jump is known, and fills the rest with NOPs. This is a somewhat serious concern in tight-loops. Now my problem is with the following situation: b: XXX c: JMP a e: XXX ... XXX d: JMP b a: XXX (where XXX is any instruction, depending on the to-be assembled program) The problem is that I want the smallest possible encoding for a JMP instruction (and no NOP filling). I have to know the size of the instruction at c before I can calculate the relative distance between a and b for the operand at d. The same applies for the JMP at c: it needs to know the size of d before it can calculate the relative distance between e and a. How do existing assemblers implement this, or how would you implement this? This is what I am thinking which solves the problem: First encode all the instructions to opcodes between the JMP and it's target, and if this region contains a variable-sized opcode, use the maximum size, i.e. 5 for JMP. Then in some conditions, the JMP is oversized (because it may fit in a smaller encoding): so another pass will search for oversized JMPs, shrink them, and move all instructions ahead), and set absolute branching instructions (i.e. external CALLs) after this pass is completed. I wonder, perhaps this is an over-engineered solution, that's why I ask this question.

    Read the article

  • RegularExpression-esque search matching Objects in List

    - by Pindatjuh
    I'm currently working on an implementation of the following idea, and I was wondering if there is any literature on this subject. Working with Java, but the principle applies on any language with a decent type-system, I like to implement: matching Objects from a List using a RegularExpression-esque search: So let's say I have a List containing List<Object> x = new ArrayList<Object>(); x.add(new Object()); x.add("Hello World"); x.add("Second String"); x.add(5); // Integer (auto-boxing) x.add(6); // Integer Then I create a "Regular Expression" (not working with a stream of characters, but working with a stream of Objects), and instead of character-classes, I use type-system properties: [String][Integer] And this would match one sublist: {Match["Second String", 5]}. The expression: [String:length()<15] Will match two sublist (each of length 1) containing a String which instance is passing the expression instance.length() < 5: {Match["Hello World"],Match["Second String"]}. [Object][Object] Matches any pair in the List: {Match[Object,"Hello World"],Match["Second String", 5]}, in a streamed manner (no overlapping matches). Ofcourse, my implementation will have grouping, lookahead/lookbehinds and is hierarchical (i.e. matching n elements from Lists in Lists), etc. The above merely illustrates the concept. Is there a name for this principle, and is there literature available on it?

    Read the article

  • (x86) Assembler Optimization

    - by Pindatjuh
    I'm building a compiler/assembler/linker in Java for the x86-32 (IA32) processor targeting Windows. High-level concepts of a "language" (in essential a Java API for creating executables) are translated into opcodes, which then are wrapped and outputted to a file. The translation process has several phases, one is the translation between languages: the highest-level code is translated into the medium-level code which is then translated into the lowest-level code (probably more than 3 levels). My problem is the following; if I have higher-level code (X and Y) translated to lower-level code (x, y, U and V), then an example of such a translation is, in pseudo-code: x + U(f) // generated by X + V(f) + y // generated by Y (An easy example) where V is the opposite of U (compare with a stack push as U and a pop as V). This needs to be 'optimized' into: x + y (essentially removing the "useless" code) My idea was to use regular expressions. For the above case, it'll be a regular expression looking like this: x:(U(x)+V(x)):null, meaning for all x find U(x) followed by V(x) and replace by null. Imagine more complex regular expressions, for more complex optimizations. This should work on all levels. What do you suggest? What would be a good approach to optimize in these situations?

    Read the article

  • Should a new language compiler target the JVM?

    - by Pindatjuh
    I'm developing a new language. My initial target was to compile to native x86 for the Windows platform, but now I am in doubt. I've seen some new languages target the JVM (most notable Scala and Clojure). Ofcourse it's not possible to port every language easily to the JVM; to do so, it may lead to small changes to the language and it's design. So that's the reason behind this doubt, and thus this question: Is targetting the JVM a good idea, when creating a compiler for a new language? Or should I stick with x86? I have experience in generating JVM bytecode. Are there any workarounds to JVM's GC? The language has deterministic implicit memory management. How to produce JIT-compatible bytecode, such that it will get the highest speedup? Is it similar to compiling for IA-32, such as the 4-1-1 muops pattern on Pentium? I can imagine some advantages (please correct me if I'm wrong): JVM bytecode is easier than x86. Like x86 communicates with Windows, JVM communicates with the Java Foundation Classes. To provide I/O, Threading, GUI, etc. Implementing "lightweight"-threads.I've seen a very clever implementation of this at http://www.malhar.net/sriram/kilim/. Most advantages of the Java Runtime (portability, etc.) The disadvantages, as I imagined, are: Less freedom? On x86 it'll be more easy to create low-level constructs, while JVM has a higher level (more abstract) processor. Most disadvantages of the Java Runtime (no native dynamic typing, etc.)

    Read the article

  • Does this language feature already exists?

    - by Pindatjuh
    I'm currently developing a new language for programming in a continuous environment (compare it to electrical engineering), and I've got some ideas on a certain language construction. Let me explain the feature by explanation and then by definition; x = a | b; Where x is a variable and a and b are other variables (or static values). if(x == a) { // all references to "x" are essentially references to "a". } if(x == b) { // same but with "b" } if(x != a) { // ... } if(x == a | b) { // guaranteed that "x" is '"a" | "b"'; interacting with "x" // will interact with both "a" and "b". } // etc. In the above, all code-blocks are executed, but the "scope" changes in each block how x is interpreted. In the first block, x is guaranteed to be a: thus interacting with x inside that block will interact on a. The second and the third code-block are only equal in this situation (because not b only remains a). The last block guarantees that x is at least a or b. Further more; | is not the "bitwise or operator", but I've called it the "and/or"-operator. It's definition is: "|" = "and" | "or" (On my blog, http://cplang.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/binop-and-or/, is more (mathematical) background information on this operator. It's loosely based on sets.) I do not know if this construction already exists, so that's my question: does this language feature already exists?

    Read the article

  • Java Generics Class Parameter Type Inference

    - by Pindatjuh
    Given the interface: public interface BasedOnOther<T, U extends BasedList<T>> { public T getOther(); public void staticStatisfied(final U list); } The BasedOnOther<T, U extends BasedList<T>> looks very ugly in my use-cases. It is because the T type parameter is already defined in the BasedList<T> part, so the "uglyness" comes from that T needs to be typed twice. Problem: is it possible to let the Java compiler infer the generic T type from BasedList<T> in a generic class/interface definition? Ultimately, I'd like to use the interface like: class X implements BasedOnOther<BasedList<SomeType>> { public SomeType getOther() { ... } public void staticStatisfied(final BasedList<SomeType> list) { ... } } // Does not compile, due to invalid parameter count. Instead: class X implements BasedOnOther<SomeType, BasedList<SomeType>> { public SomeType getOther() { ... } public void staticStatisfied(final BasedList<SomeType> list) { ... } }

    Read the article

  • Can this way of storing typed objects be improved?

    - by Pindatjuh
    This is an "can it be improved"-question. Topic: Storing typed objects in memory. Background information: I'm building a compiler for the x86-32 Windows platform for my language. My goal includes typed objects. Idea: Every primitive is a semi-class (it can be used as if it was a normal class, but it's stored more compact). Every class is represented by primitives and some meta-data (containing class-properties, inheritance stuff, etc.). The meta-data is complex: it doesn't use fields but instead context-switches. For primitives, the meta-data is very small, compared to a "real" class, which is alot bigger. This enables another idea that "primitives are objects", in my language, which I found nessecairy. Example: If I have an array of 32 booleans, then the pure content of this array is exactly 4 byte (32 bits of booleans). The meta-data will contain flags that the type is an array of booleans, which contains 32 entries. The meta-data is very compacted, on bit-level: using a sort of "packing" mechanism, which is read by a FSM at runtime, when doing inspection of the type (like when passing the object to methods for checking, etc.) For instance (read from left to right, top to bottom, remember vertical position when going to the right, and check nearest column header for meaning of switch): Primitive? Array? Type-Meta 1 Byte? || Size (1 byte) 1 1 [...] 1 [...] done 0 2 Bytes? || Size (2 bytes) 1 [...] done || Size (4 bytes) 0 [...] done Integer? 1 Byte? 2 Bytes? 0 1 0 1 done 1 done 0 done Boolean? Byte? 0 1 0 done 1 done More-Primitives 0 .... Class-Stuff (Huge) 0 ... (After reaching done the data is inserted. || = byte alignment. [...] is variable sized. ... is not described here, for simplicity. And let's call them cost-based-data-structures.) For an array of 32 booleans containing all true values, the memory for this type would be (read top-down): 1 Primitive 1 Array 1 ArrayType: Primitive 0 Not-Array 0 Not-Integer 1 Boolean 0 Not-Byte (thus bit) 1 Integer Size: 1 Byte 00100000 Array size 01010101 01010101 01010101 01010101 Data (user defined) Thus, 8 bytes represent 32 booleans in an array: 11100101 00100000 01010101 01010101 01010101 01010101 How can I improve this? (Both performance- and memory-consumption wise)

    Read the article

  • Conditional operator in if-statement?

    - by Pindatjuh
    I've written the following if-statement in Java: if(methodName.equals("set" + this.name) || isBoolean() ? methodName.equals("is" + this.name) : methodName.equals("get" + this.name)) { ... } Is this a good practice to write such expressions in if, to separate state from condition? And can this expression be simplified?

    Read the article

  • Java do while, while

    - by Pindatjuh
    Hello, what behaviour can I expect when I run this code: do while(testA) { // do stuff } while(testB); Will it behave like: do { while(testA) { // do stuff } } while(testB); Or: if(testA) { do { // do stuff } while(testA && testB); } Or something totally unexpected? I ask this question because I think this is quite ambiguous, and for other people searching on this topic, not because I am lazy to test it out.

    Read the article

  • Java Generics Class Type Parameter Inference

    - by Pindatjuh
    Given the interface: public interface BasedOnOther<T, U extends BasedList<T>> { public T getOther(); public void staticStatisfied(final U list); } The BasedOnOther<T, U extends BasedList<T>> looks very ugly in my use-cases. It is because the T type parameter is already defined in the BasedList<T> part, so the "uglyness" comes from that T needs to be typed twice. Problem: is it possible to let the Java compiler infer the generic T type from BasedList<T> in a generic class/interface definition? Ultimately, I'd like to use the interface like: class X extends BasedOnOther<BasedList<SomeType>> { public SomeType getOther() { ... } public void staticStatisfied(final BasedList<SomeType> list) { ... } } Instead: class X extends BasedOnOther<SomeType, BasedList<SomeType>> { public SomeType getOther() { ... } public void staticStatisfied(final BasedList<SomeType> list) { ... } }

    Read the article

  • Ternary operator in if-statement?

    - by Pindatjuh
    I've written the following if-statement in Java: if(methodName.equals("set" + this.name) || isBoolean() ? methodName.equals("is" + this.name) : methodName.equals("get" + this.name)) { ... } Is this a good practice to write such expressions in if, to separate state from condition? And can this expression be simplified?

    Read the article

  • HTML, CSS: overbar matching square root symbol

    - by Pindatjuh
    Is there a way in HTML and/or CSS to do the following, but then correctly: √¯¯¯¯¯¯φ·(2π−γ) Such that there is an overbar above the expression, which neatly aligns with the &radic;? I know there is the Unicode &macr;, that looks like the overbar I need (as used in the above example, though as you can see – it doesn't align well with the root symbol). The solution I'm looking for works at least for one standard font, on most sizes, and all modern browsers. I can't use images; I'd like to have a pure HTML4/CSS way, without client scripting. Here is my current code, thank you Matthew Jones (+1) for the text-decoration: overline! Still some problems <div style="font-family: Georgia; font-size: 200%"> <span style="vertical-align: -15%;">&radic;</span><span style="text-decoration: overline;">&nbsp;x&nbsp;+&nbsp;1&nbsp;</span> </div> The line doesn't match the &radic; because I lowered it with 15% baseline height. (Because the default placement is not nice) The line thickness doesn't match the thickness of the &radic;. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Sun's JVM instruction speed table

    - by Pindatjuh
    Is there a benchmark available how much relative time each instruction costs in a single-thread, average-case scenario (either with or without JIT compiler), for the JVM (any version) by Sun? If there is not a benchmark already available, how can I get this information? E.g.: TIME iload_1 1 iadd 12 getfield 40 etc. Where getfield is equivalent to 40 iload_1 instructions.

    Read the article

  • What are the disadvantages of targeting the JVM instead of x86?

    - by Pindatjuh
    I'm developing a new language. My initial target was to compile to native x86 for the Windows platform, but now I am in doubt. I've seen some new languages target the JVM (most notable Scala and Clojure). Ofcourse it's not possible to port every language easily to the JVM; to do so may lead to small changes to the language and it's design. After posing this question, I even doubted more about this decision. I now know some "pro" JVM arguments. The original question was: is targetting the JVM a good idea, when creating a compiler for a new language? Updated the question: What are the disadvantages of targeting the JVM instead of x86 on Windows?

    Read the article

  • Does this language feature already exist?

    - by Pindatjuh
    I'm currently developing a new language for programming in a continuous environment (compare it to electrical engineering), and I've got some ideas on a certain language construction. Let me explain the feature by explanation and then by definition: x = a U b; Where x is a variable and a and b are other variables (or static values). This works like a union between a and b; no duplicates and no specific order. with(x) { // regular 'with' usage; using the global interpretation of "x" x = 5; // will replace the original definition of "x = a U b;" } with(x = a) { // this code block is executed when the "x" variable // has the "a" variable assigned. All references in // this code-block to "x" are references to "a". So saying: x = 5; // would only change the variable "a". If the variable "a" // later on changes, x still equals to 5, in this fashion: // 'x = a U b U 5;' // '[currentscope] = 5;' // thus, 'a = 5;' } with(x = b) { // same but with "b" } with(x != a) { // here the "x" variable refers to any variable // but "a"; thus saying x = 5; // is equal to the rewriting of // 'x = a U b U 5;' // 'b = 5;' (since it was the scope of this block) } with(x = (a U b)) { // guaranteed that "x" is 'a U b'; interacting with "x" // will interact with both "a" and "b". x = 5; // makes both "a" and "b" equal to 5; also the "x" variable // is updated to contain: // 'x = a U b U 5;' // '[currentscope] = 5;' // 'a U b = 5;' // and thus: 'a = 5; b = 5;'. } // etc. In the above, all code-blocks are executed, but the "scope" changes in each block how x is interpreted. In the first block, x is guaranteed to be a: thus interacting with x inside that block will interact on a. The second and the third code-block are only equal in this situation (because not a: then there only remains b). The last block guarantees that x is at least a or b. Further more; U is not the "bitwise or operator", but I've called it the "and/or"-operator. Its definition is: "U" = "and" U "or" (On my blog, http://cplang.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/binop-and-or/, there is more (mathematical) background information on this operator. It's loosely based on sets. Using different syntax, changed it in this question.) Update: more examples. print = "Hello world!" U "How are you?"; // this will print // both values, but the // order doesn't matter. // 'userkey' is a variable containing a key. with(userkey = "a") { print = userkey; // will only print "a". } with(userkey = ("shift" U "a")) { // pressed both "shift" and the "a" key. print = userkey; // will "print" shift and "a", even // if the user also pressed "ctrl": // the interpretation of "userkey" is changed, // such that it only contains the matched cases. } with((userkey = "shift") U (userkey = "a")) { // same as if-statement above this one, showing the distributivity. } x = 5 U 6 U 7; y = x + x; // will be: // y = (5 U 6 U 7) + (5 U 6 U 7) // = 10 U 11 U 12 U 13 U 14 somewantedkey = "ctrl" U "alt" U "space" with(userkey = somewantedkey) { // must match all elements of "somewantedkey" // (distributed the Boolean equals operated) // thus only executed when all the defined keys are pressed } with(somewantedkey = userkey) { // matches only one of the provided "somewantedkey" // thus when only "space" is pressed, this block is executed. } Update2: more examples and some more context. with(x = (a U b)) { // this } // can be written as with((x = a) U (x = b)) { // this: changing the variable like x = 5; // will be rewritten as: // a = 5 and b = 5 } Some background information: I'm building a language which is "time-independent", like Java is "platform-independant". Everything stated in the language is "as is", and is continuously actively executed. This means; the programmer does not know in which order (unless explicitly stated using constructions) elements are, nor when statements are executed. The language is completely separated from the "time"-concept, i.e. it's continuously executed: with(a < 5) { a++; } // this is a loop-structure; // how and when it's executed isn't known however. with(a) { // everytime the "a" variable changes, this code-block is executed. b = 4; with(b < 3) { // runs only three times. } with(b > 0) { b = b - 1; // runs four times } } Update 3: After pondering on the type of this language feature; it closely resemblances Netbeans Platform's Lookup, where each "with"-statement a synchronized agent is, working on it's specific "filter" of objects. Instead of type-based, this is variable-based (fundamentally quite the same; just a different way of identifiying objects). I greatly thank all of you for providing me with very insightful information and links/hints to great topics I can research. Thanks. I do not know if this construction already exists, so that's my question: does this language feature already exist?

    Read the article

  • Java syntax of +

    - by Pindatjuh
    Why is the following syntax correct: x = y+++y; (Where it means y++ + y or y + ++y which both mean y * 2 + 1) But this is not valid syntax: x = y+++++y; (Which should mean y++ + ++y, which must mean y and increase y and then add ++y which increases y thus y * 2 + 2) Is there a reason for this?

    Read the article

1