Privalov, can you show me a Windows 64-bit example program? Just a simple one

haha f0dder, if you didn't tell i wouldn't even notice

I need first to implement the Win64 PE/COFF formats into fasm, and I won't start it before I end implementing the ELF64 (should be soon, anyway).

"Win32 64-bit example"? ^_^
Is XP64 even out yet? I thought the only 64bit windows was for the Itanium (and the old NT4 versions for Alpha).

Well, quick googling shows there already are examples (with ML64) for the AMD64 Windows: http://www.codegurus.be/codegurus/Programming/assembler&win64_en.htm#Win64

It's pretty confusing that you dont use the stack no more to fill parameters.

I wonder how this thing goes with registers to fill params

no stack no buffer overrun but what a hell could be worse instead of it ?

Russian crackers found the way how to skip SP2 for XP improvements and laugh so laud because of all the confusion with stack guard system called "DEP" which slow the system and can protect anything ...
anyway...

win64 syntax is little strange and until I do not own 64 platform it is a far far...future.
Day after day I like more the oldest PC's than the newer one.

best regards,

Do you think that voulnerabilities depend on the processors' features?

Harry, XP SP2 is certainly not perfect, but it helps a lot. And hardware no-execute page protection (when executed correctly) certainly helps a lot.

Hm... And what?.. It looks like for x86-64 we must remember all of registrs' using for all of apis?! Or there is some straight system of handling function's parameters? I'm confused...



Sometimes Russians are crazy and hard-minded men.

Hmmm, a bit like calling interrupts in DOS; nice!

yeah

Well, it's interesting! But this causes some kind of incompatibility with current 32-bit systems. Am I wrong?

Hey, I'm just realize that x86-64 is only AMD version of 64-bit platform! And that IA-64 is Intel version. But this is not the same.
Good! In the near future we can get 2 different platforms!
Will fasm support IA-64?

It's not AMD only - Intel came up with its own implementation of x86-64, it's called EM64T:
http://www.intel.com/technology/64bitextensions/
It has also a few instructions that AMD64 doesn't have (80-bit far call and CMPXCHG16B), fasm already implements all.

But what about IA-64? I'm confuses more and more...

Read the Intel's FAQ for EM64T - they answer there a question why are they introducing two different 64-bit architectures.

Thanx a lot! But 3 64-bit platform is too much for me! Every software will be in a 3 versions: x86-64, IA-64, EM64T? Or more? Are they compatible?

AMD64 and EM64T are compatible and x86-64 IMO should be used as a common name for them both.
IA64 is something entirely different.

OK, now I'm read all of infos I can get. And I like AMD realization more than IA-64 'coz it's the logically way to extend 32 to 64 like 8 to 16 to 32. a -> ax -> eax -> rax - is more clear!
On the http://www.x86-64.org/downloads there is Bochs and AMD64 Simics Simulator. But only for Linux if I'm right.
And who knows x86-64 disassembler or debugger to inspect produced code?

in short:
IA-32 - Intel's 32-bit Architecture (x86)
IA-64 - Intel's 64-bit Architecture (Itanium/Xenon, servers)
AMD64 - AMD's name on the IS of the "Hammers" (Opteron, Athlon64), some refer to this as AA-64 (very few) or x86-64 (quite a few, many really). Afaik/iirc AMD wants the IS to be called AMD64 (wonder why ).
EM64T - Intels version of the AMD64 (with their own enhacements, sort of like the Athlons AMD made when it was they who followed intel and not the other way around).
x86-64 - the common name for AMD64 (and EM64T), probably a good choice, since it makes the 'link to x86 more clear.

Debugger, well, gdb/ddd works, but, well, I just can't get it to do what I want... (I dream of olly beeing ported to linux and given the code to handle x86-64 ). If you find one I'd be happy to heard which one, I've thought of testing "the Dude" ( http://the-dude.sourceforge.net/ ), just haven't had time yet.

btw, before a flame war erupts over whether it's good or not to 'expand' the x86 IS to x86-64. There are both advantages and disadvantages of this, but imho backward compabillity is the most important (which can be achived in many ways, hardware or software). I (too) think x86-64 (and a linux OS or similar, since it's pretty much the only non-beta version OS currently avalibe) is the best solution for the "common people", and it seems many of thse who decide the hardware/OS for servers seems to like it too (though I don't know that much about that part of the world, that's the impression I've gotten of the situation - correct me if I'm wrong).

Just a few questions, why the hell use 64-bit programming when there isn't any use for it yet?? i've have seen one program in 64 bit asm, its was a virus so lol, and can windows 98 even understand 64 bit code?? ps, i like my 16bit and of course a little 32 bit :-s