flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

flat assembler > Main > Whether it is necessary to add multi-byte NOPs support?


Whether it is necessary to add multi-byte NOPs instructions support?
Yes, FASM must support it
62%
 62%  [ 15 ]
No, it isn't necessary
16%
 16%  [ 4 ]
The macros using is more convenient
20%
 20%  [ 5 ]
Total Votes : 24

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Hunter



Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 41
[Poll] Whether it is necessary to add multi-byte NOPs instructions support?
Post 25 Aug 2006, 09:49
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MazeGen



Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Posts: 953
Location: Czechoslovakia
Since it is standard and documented instruction of x86 architecture, FASM should support it.

Hunter, you should add something about what multi-byte NOP is (a reference to that thread would be enough).
Post 25 Aug 2006, 10:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7108
Location: Slovakia
what should be syntax for it? "nop 2" etc? I think that would be acceptable, and then i am for adding it.

Question is then, what to do in case when we don't have NOP version for given length, like "nop 354" use known ones to pad the length? or fill with 90h nops?
Post 25 Aug 2006, 10:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
okasvi



Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 383
Location: Finland
voted for 'Yes, FASM must support it' but I think the option should have been 'Yes, FASM should support it', 'must' makes it look like we who voted for it are not accepting other choice, clearly: it's up to Tomasz, but I'd like to see it in fasm.
Post 25 Aug 2006, 11:30
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Hunter



Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 41
MazeGen, ok! Here is it:
Image
Post 25 Aug 2006, 11:51
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
me wrote:
My Athlon64 reaches int3 with this
Code:
format PE GUI 4.0

macro nop src 
{ 
local ..lea 
  if ~src eq 
    db $0F 
    ..lea: lea eax, src 
    store $1F at ..lea 
  else 
    nop 
  end if 
} 
irps instr, noP nOp nOP Nop NoP NOp NOP {macro instr src \{nop src\}} 

nop dword [ebx+esi+5]
int3    


Since [ebx+esi+5] works I think that FASM should implement it instead of just generate NOPs like Table 4-1.
Post 25 Aug 2006, 13:18
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Hunter



Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 41
Hi Tomasz! Intel has updated manuals recently and added new instructions set - SSSE3 (Supplemental SSE3). Could you also add it to FASM for comleteness?
Post 23 Sep 2006, 11:27
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7312
Location: Kraków, Poland
Post 23 Sep 2006, 12:01
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Hunter



Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 41
Now they are documented instructions Smile
Post 23 Sep 2006, 12:18
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7312
Location: Kraków, Poland
And thus they are now supported.
Post 23 Sep 2006, 20:39
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Hunter



Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 41
Thank you very much for SSSE3 support! Smile The FASM is the BEST!
And what do you think about this poll and multi-byte NOPs support for completeness now? Wink Maybe, The Time has come? Wink
Post 26 Sep 2006, 10:31
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16707
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
I voted yes because having all the available instructions makes it easier to use FASM when generating test files for disassemblers and emulators. If I see the instruction documented in the manual then I like to add it to my library of test procedures. With the direct availability in the assmbler it makes the test files clearer and cleaner.
Post 26 Sep 2006, 12:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7312
Location: Kraków, Poland
It already was there, hoped you'd find it out by yourself. Wink
Post 26 Sep 2006, 13:08
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16707
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
Oh shucks, there's a version 1.67.10 now! Good work. This is a good thing.
Post 26 Sep 2006, 14:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2019, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.