AT&T-to-FASM

Index > Main > AT&T-to-FASM

Author

Thread

zir_blazer

Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 66

zir_blazer 07 Mar 2013, 04:33

I'm messing around with both C and ASM. As I learned that the GCC compiler can translate C code directly to ASM, I decided to give it a try to see how some simple things done in C looks at the ASM side, like defining variables, structs, and the like. However, there is a problem: GCC outputs ASM in AT&T syntax, and I know nothing about it (Should be MASM, but doesn't seem to work properly even with the proper parameters, and even then I don't know about MASM and FASM syntaxs differences either).
Anyways, I would want to know if either a compiler that can output ASM in FASM syntax (Could be a GCC mod), or a dissambler that can reverse engineer also on FASM syntax exist, so I could use any type of compiler then check how the code looks later. Learning these languages is fairly hard already and having to deal with MULTIPLE syntaxs to get what you want makes things much more confusing that they should be. A not-too-complex reference guide of direct translation of C code to FASM would also work (For example, I suppose that when you're using the ++ or -- operands on C, on ASM you're simply using the add and sub instructions on a Register).

07 Mar 2013, 04:33

bitRAKE

Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 3892
Location: vpcmipstrm

bitRAKE 07 Mar 2013, 04:43

Hopefully, this is still true - seems it would really help you:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/972602/att-vs-intel-syntax-and-limitations

Quote:

GCC can do Intel syntax with -masm=intel

It looks like you can make GDB use Intel syntax with this:
set disassembly-flavor intel

07 Mar 2013, 04:43

zir_blazer

Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 66

zir_blazer 07 Mar 2013, 05:21

bitRAKE wrote:

Hopefully, this is still true - seems it would really help you:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/972602/att-vs-intel-syntax-and-limitations
Quote:
GCC can do Intel syntax with -masm=intel

It looks like you can make GDB use Intel syntax with this:
set disassembly-flavor intel

Been there, done that. -masm=intel uses Intel syntax for instructions, but the rest is all of the AT&T data and metadata.

Example:

att.c C source

Code:

int a = 42;
unsigned char b = 21;

int main(int argc, char const *argv[])
{
        a = 99;
        b = 255;
        return 0;}

gcc -S att.c (Default AT&T syntax)

att.s content

Code:

        .file   "att.c"
        .globl  _a
        .data
        .align 4
_a:
        .long   42
        .globl  _b
_b:
        .byte   21
        .def    ___main;        .scl    2;      .type   32;     .endef
        .text
        .globl  _main
        .def    _main;  .scl    2;      .type   32;     .endef
_main:
LFB0:
        .cfi_startproc
        pushl   %ebp
        .cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
        .cfi_offset 5, -8
        movl    %esp, %ebp
        .cfi_def_cfa_register 5
        andl    $-16, %esp
        call    ___main
        movl    $99, _a
        movb    $-1, _b
        movl    $0, %eax
        leave
        .cfi_restore 5
        .cfi_def_cfa 4, 4
        ret
        .cfi_endproc
LFE0:

gcc -S -masm=intel att.c

att.s content

Code:

        .file   "att.c"
        .intel_syntax noprefix
        .globl  _a
        .data
        .align 4
_a:
        .long   42
        .globl  _b
_b:
        .byte   21
        .def    ___main;        .scl    2;      .type   32;     .endef
        .text
        .globl  _main
        .def    _main;  .scl    2;      .type   32;     .endef
_main:
LFB0:
        .cfi_startproc
        push    ebp
        .cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
        .cfi_offset 5, -8
        mov     ebp, esp
        .cfi_def_cfa_register 5
        and     esp, -16
        call    ___main
        mov     DWORD PTR _a, 99
        mov     BYTE PTR _b, -1
        mov     eax, 0
        leave
        .cfi_restore 5
        .cfi_def_cfa 4, 4
        ret
        .cfi_endproc
LFE0:

As far that I know, in MASM, data is defined the same way that FASM, so that .long 42 should be dd 42, as .byte 21 should be db 21. So the output when using -masm=intel is a ugly mix of both Intel syntax and AT&T leftovers that makes reading it a pain.

07 Mar 2013, 05:21

bitRAKE

Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 3892
Location: vpcmipstrm

bitRAKE 07 Mar 2013, 08:31

Yeah, that sucks. I don't know what all that .cfi_* crap is - maybe there is a way to turn that off, and then do something like:

Code:

.file fix ;
.intel_syntax fix ;
.globl fix extrn
.data fix segment data
.long fix dd
.byte fix db
.def fix label
.text fix segment code

...to let the rest fly.

Best way to learn x86 is in a debugger, imho. But that's how I learned. Smile

Debuggers will give you just the code without the overhead of the assembler flavor. It's like - when is the last time you really tasted a potato? Usually, there is so much stuff on it...

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ “languages are not safe - uses can be” Bjarne Stroustrup

07 Mar 2013, 08:31

rugxulo

Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)

rugxulo 18 May 2013, 22:18

bitRAKE wrote:

It's like - when is the last time you really tasted a potato? Usually, there is so much stuff on it...

(Okay, I really can't resist here.) A baked potato is the blandest food on Earth! Apparently nobody "wants" to taste it all by itself! (Only thing worse is probably grits.)

EDIT: Just to be vaguely on-topic:

echo set disassembly-flavor intel > gdb.ini
objdump -d -M intel blah.o

All that .cfi stuff is new in GCC. Just use an older version to avoid it. (No, I can't remember why it's there either. Probably debugging or constructors or whatnot.)

18 May 2013, 22:18

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 19872
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

revolution 18 May 2013, 22:40

rugxulo wrote:

(Okay, I really can't resist here.) A baked potato is the blandest food on Earth! Apparently nobody "wants" to taste it all by itself!

I guess your taste buds are different from mine. I like a plain, unadorned, unseasoned, unspiced, undecorated, backed potato. [/offtopic]

18 May 2013, 22:40

HaHaAnonymous

Joined: 02 Dec 2012
Posts: 1178
Location: Unknown

HaHaAnonymous 19 May 2013, 00:32

[ Post removed by author. ]

Last edited by HaHaAnonymous on 28 Feb 2015, 20:29; edited 1 time in total

19 May 2013, 00:32

randall

Joined: 03 Dec 2011
Posts: 155
Location: Poland

randall 19 May 2013, 11:24

http://gcc.godbolt.org/

This is a really good online tool for translating C to ASM.

19 May 2013, 11:24

HaHaAnonymous

Joined: 02 Dec 2012
Posts: 1178
Location: Unknown

HaHaAnonymous 19 May 2013, 16:26

[ Post removed by author. ]

Last edited by HaHaAnonymous on 28 Feb 2015, 20:25; edited 1 time in total

19 May 2013, 16:26

randall

Joined: 03 Dec 2011
Posts: 155
Location: Poland

randall 19 May 2013, 18:20

HaHaAnonymous wrote:

Quote:

This is a really good online tool for translating C to ASM.

This brings another debate: When will software be written to do the opposed? (A human is capable to do it).

A human is capable of doing anything.

19 May 2013, 18:20

zir_blazer

Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 66

zir_blazer 20 May 2013, 23:43

randall wrote:

http://gcc.godbolt.org/

This is a really good online tool for translating C to ASM.

I saw that link when this Thread was new because it was mentioned in the Heap forum. It took that link two months to get posted here.

All the code that begins with a . seems to be the GCC linker metadata, so its not actual code. At least now I know where all those lines comes from. What I didn't recall if I ever found is a parameter to disable that linker metadata output. But I didn't needed it any longer considering I can just use that converter site that removes that by default.

20 May 2013, 23:43

Bob++

Joined: 12 Feb 2013
Posts: 92

Bob++ 25 May 2013, 21:22

randall wrote:

HaHaAnonymous wrote:

Quote:

This is a really good online tool for translating C to ASM.

This brings another debate: When will software be written to do the opposed? (A human is capable to do it).

A human is capable of doing anything.

Including Skynet. Cool

25 May 2013, 21:22

< 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