PROC more like MASM

Index > Macroinstructions > PROC more like MASM

Author

Thread

alorent

Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 221

alorent 24 Feb 2010, 06:13

Hello guys!

I know that many of you might disagree with MASM syntax and move 100% to FASM...but for an old MASM guy like me that's not quite easy Smile

I have 2 questions for the PROC macro in FASM and check if it's possible:

1) It is possible to create a macro where *all* "labels" and "jumps to labels" are treated like if it had a dot '.' before the name? That is, we can forget about putting the initial '.' to all label names inside our PROC. Example:

Code:


myproc proc 

   jmp  Exit

Exit:
   ret 

myproc  endp

; the above should generate:

myproc proc 

   jmp  .Exit

.Exit:
   ret 

myproc  endp

2) Each param and local variable in PROC can be referenced by its name without adding the '[' ']'. Example:

Code:


myproc proc Param1

   local  local1 

   mov  eax, local1
   mov  ebx, Param1

   ret 

myproc  endp

; the above should generate:

myproc proc Param1

   local  local1 

   mov  eax, [local1]
   mov  ebx, [Param1]

   ret 

myproc  endp

Thanks!

24 Feb 2010, 06:13

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 20418
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

revolution 24 Feb 2010, 07:10

1) No. You can't overload : operator
2) Yes. Just change the macro to create the symbolic aliases with [] surrounding.

24 Feb 2010, 07:10

baldr

Joined: 19 Mar 2008
Posts: 1651

baldr 27 Feb 2010, 20:14

revolution wrote:

2) Yes. Just change the macro to create the symbolic aliases with [] surrounding.

This will create problem with extended headers (addr feature of invoke macro).

27 Feb 2010, 20:14

alorent

Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 221

alorent 25 May 2010, 13:26

Hello,

I have come back to this topic.

revolution, could you let me know how I can modify the macro to be able to access to the local variable content withouth the brackets? Or maybe to define something like "local2" which allow those variables to be access without brackets. Example:

Code:

Myproc proc 

 local  i1:DWORD, i2:DWORD
 local2  j1:DWORD, j2:DWORD

...

baldr, you say that there are problems with invoke. What if I don't use invoke?

What about global variables that are defined as:

Code:

MyVar dd 0

Is it possible to create a macro or something to access to that global variable withouth the brackets?. Example:

Code:

mov   eax, MyVar      ; it would do "mov eax, [MyVar]"

Thanks!

25 May 2010, 13:26

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 20418
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

revolution 25 May 2010, 13:53

alorent: Doing what you suggest above creates many problems, not just with invoke.

If we do this:

Code:

AVar equ [ebp+8] ;first parameter

And then this:

Code:

mov eax,AVar

Then you get what you want.

But what happens for arrays (or any indexing or offsets)?

Code:

mov eax,AVar+ecx*4

It compiles to:

Code:

mov eax,[ebp+8]+ecx*4 ;error

25 May 2010, 13:53

Tomasz Grysztar

Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 8356
Location: Kraków, Poland

Tomasz Grysztar 25 May 2010, 15:01

revolution wrote:

alorent: Doing what you suggest above creates many problems, not just with invoke.

If we do this:
Code:
AVar equ [ebp+8] ;first parameter    
And then this:
Code:
mov eax,AVar    
Then you get what you want.

But what happens for arrays (or any indexing or offsets)?
Code:
mov eax,AVar+ecx*4    
It compiles to:
Code:
mov eax,[ebp+8]+ecx*4 ;error    

You can overcome this problem with definition like:

Code:

AVar equ ptr ebp+8

Then

Code:

mov eax,AVar+ecx*4

would compile to:

Code:

mov eax,ptr ebp+8+ecx*4

and this would compile correctly.

25 May 2010, 15:01

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 20418
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

revolution 25 May 2010, 15:08

Oh, ptr is new to me. I've not seen that in fasm before.

25 May 2010, 15:08

Tomasz Grysztar

Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 8356
Location: Kraków, Poland

Tomasz Grysztar 25 May 2010, 15:13

It was introduced in version 1.36 (released in May 2002). Documented in section 1.2.1 since the release of the new documentation with 1.41. Wink

25 May 2010, 15:13

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 20418
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

revolution 25 May 2010, 18:43

Tomasz Grysztar wrote:

It was introduced in version 1.36 (released in May 2002). Documented in section 1.2.1 since the release of the new documentation with 1.41.

25 May 2010, 18:43

ouadji

Joined: 24 Dec 2008
Posts: 1081
Location: Belgium

ouadji 25 May 2010, 19:08

I didn't know that either ! Shocked

but I prefer "[x]", it's more explicit than "ptr x" !

_________________
I am not young enough to know everything (Oscar Wilde)-

25 May 2010, 19:08

alorent

Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 221

alorent 26 May 2010, 15:53

Thanks again guys!

Well, I better stay with the FASM basics and use the brackets even if MASM has been on my bones for such a long time Smile

26 May 2010, 15:53

< 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