<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86</id>
  <title type="text">comp.lang.asm.x86 Google Group</title>
  <subtitle type="text">
  Bulletin Board and Q&amp;A for x86 assembly language topics. (Moderated)
  </subtitle>
  <link href="/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/feed/atom_v1_0_msgs.xml" rel="self" title="comp.lang.asm.x86 feed"/>
  <updated>2010-01-05T14:46:52Z</updated>
  <generator uri="http://groups.google.com" version="1.99">Google Groups</generator>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>David</name>
  <email>t...@is.invalid</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-05T14:46:52Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/34c099b1a87fd057/d660dfafb775e181?show_docid=d660dfafb775e181</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/34c099b1a87fd057/d660dfafb775e181?show_docid=d660dfafb775e181"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Debugger for AMD64?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Windows .. there is CDB as well - but I just want to open the debugger, type &lt;br&gt; &amp;quot;a&amp;quot;, do my own thing, hit &amp;quot;t&amp;quot; a couple to see the results. &lt;br&gt; I&#39;ll search for that.
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Alexei A. Frounze</name>
  <email>alexfrun...@munged.microcosmotalk.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-05T08:10:04Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/34c099b1a87fd057/94d721c206a9aed3?show_docid=94d721c206a9aed3</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/34c099b1a87fd057/94d721c206a9aed3?show_docid=94d721c206a9aed3"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Debugger for AMD64?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  On Jan 4, 2:25 pm, &amp;quot;BGB / cr88192&amp;quot; &amp;lt;cr88...@MUNGED.microcosmotalk .com&amp;gt; &lt;br&gt; wrote: &lt;br&gt; Other Microsoft debuggers (console) are: &lt;br&gt; NTSD, CDB and KD. &lt;br&gt; NTSD is in \windows\system32 on WinXP. &lt;br&gt; See more here: &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc267445.aspx&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; Alex
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Frank Kotler</name>
  <email>fbkot...@munged.microcosmotalk.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T22:49:21Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/34c099b1a87fd057/05f72b7423c8e396?show_docid=05f72b7423c8e396</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/34c099b1a87fd057/05f72b7423c8e396?show_docid=05f72b7423c8e396"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Debugger for AMD64?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Sztacheta - jozeksztacheta wrote... but the clax86 moderation software &lt;br&gt; ate his post (for some reason) &lt;br&gt; Try FDBG &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://feryno.host.sk/&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; Sorry to have dropped your post - hope I&#39;ve got it right! Thanks! &lt;br&gt; Best, &lt;br&gt; Frank
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>BGB / cr88192</name>
  <email>cr88...@munged.microcosmotalk.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T22:25:16Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/34c099b1a87fd057/84e4e11f07cd7a44?show_docid=84e4e11f07cd7a44</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/34c099b1a87fd057/84e4e11f07cd7a44?show_docid=84e4e11f07cd7a44"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Debugger for AMD64?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  for which OS?... &lt;br&gt; if Windows, I am using WinDbg, but granted this is not a command-line &lt;br&gt; debugger. &lt;br&gt; still has support for disassembly, ... &lt;br&gt; for Linux, there is GDB... &lt;br&gt; I think there may be a Win64 port of GDB by now, but I have not checked. &lt;br&gt; I forget where exactly, but I think there was also a command-line debugger
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>David</name>
  <email>t...@is.invalid</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T20:10:27Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/34c099b1a87fd057/965e362526297476?show_docid=965e362526297476</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/34c099b1a87fd057/965e362526297476?show_docid=965e362526297476"/>
  <title type="text">Debugger for AMD64?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Anyone know of a AMD64 compatible symdeb/debug (command line) type debugger? &lt;br&gt; I use them all the time to test instruction results. For i386 I use ddeb, &lt;br&gt; but don&#39;t know of an AMD64 version?
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Richard Russell</name>
  <email>n...@munged.microcosmotalk.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T11:18:38Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/a9f6429f09f95d5a/9db069ae715fe163?show_docid=9db069ae715fe163</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/a9f6429f09f95d5a/9db069ae715fe163?show_docid=9db069ae715fe163"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Calling convention odd?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  I&#39;m not even sure you can say &amp;quot;commercially obsolete&amp;quot;. The ARM is the &lt;br&gt; highest-volume 32-bit (or more) processor in the world by a very large &lt;br&gt; margin, with approximately 1,500,000,000 per year being shipped &lt;br&gt; currently (yes, that&#39;s one-and-a-half billion!), mostly going into &lt;br&gt; cellphones. &lt;br&gt; Richard. &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt;
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Rod Pemberton</name>
  <email>do_not_h...@nohavenot.cmm</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T11:17:55Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/a9f6429f09f95d5a/2c3e277b18b0cc38?show_docid=2c3e277b18b0cc38</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/a9f6429f09f95d5a/2c3e277b18b0cc38?show_docid=2c3e277b18b0cc38"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Calling convention odd?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  RISC &lt;br&gt; per &lt;br&gt; It is accurate. &lt;br&gt; True too, but that wasn&#39;t my point. &lt;br&gt; &amp;quot;per CPU clock&amp;quot; too was my point. &lt;br&gt; If one averages CISC work per instruction to a per clock basis so that they &lt;br&gt; can be compared with RISC, CISC instructions do more work per clock than &lt;br&gt; RISC. That was part of the reason why RISC failed. The conjecture that
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Rod Pemberton</name>
  <email>do_not_h...@nohavenot.cmm</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T11:17:32Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/a9f6429f09f95d5a/f48eba436239e692?show_docid=f48eba436239e692</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/a9f6429f09f95d5a/f48eba436239e692?show_docid=f48eba436239e692"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Calling convention odd?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Bad, why? &lt;br&gt; By use of the word &amp;quot;This&amp;quot;, below, I mean combination unrelated operations &lt;br&gt; into a single operation. &lt;br&gt; 1) This is a key technique they use to speed up interpreters. It&#39;s called &lt;br&gt; &amp;quot;super instructions&amp;quot; (Anton Ertl) or &amp;quot;superoperators&amp;quot; (Todd Proebstring). &lt;br&gt; 2) This is also a key technique used in recent x86 processors. It&#39;s called
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>wolfgang kern</name>
  <email>nowh...@never.at</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T11:17:21Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/a9f6429f09f95d5a/0ebc585c5651325e?show_docid=0ebc585c5651325e</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/a9f6429f09f95d5a/0ebc585c5651325e?show_docid=0ebc585c5651325e"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Calling convention odd?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  &amp;quot;Tim Roberts&amp;quot; asked: &lt;br&gt; I just looked at the CPU-internal Register-numbers, and as the first three &lt;br&gt; might also be the most used/altered/instruction-inher ent since 8000, this &lt;br&gt; could be the reason for not saving their contents in Lib-functions of HLLs. &lt;br&gt; __ &lt;br&gt; wolfgang
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Frank Kotler</name>
  <email>fbkot...@munged.microcosmotalk.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T11:17:12Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/a9f6429f09f95d5a/c315b1cb9cb4112c?show_docid=c315b1cb9cb4112c</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/a9f6429f09f95d5a/c315b1cb9cb4112c?show_docid=c315b1cb9cb4112c"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Calling convention odd?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  The fact that the &amp;quot;callee preserves&amp;quot; registers are the same ones that &lt;br&gt; can be used in an effective address (16-bit) may be relevant... or not... &lt;br&gt; Best, &lt;br&gt; Frank
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Tim Roberts</name>
  <email>t...@munged.microcosmotalk.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T02:34:22Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/a9f6429f09f95d5a/fcb409ee6f16aa7a?show_docid=fcb409ee6f16aa7a</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/a9f6429f09f95d5a/fcb409ee6f16aa7a?show_docid=fcb409ee6f16aa7a"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Calling convention odd?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Although I agree with your naming, this seems like a non sequitur. Why do &lt;br&gt; you think this supports the choice of volatile registers in the calling &lt;br&gt; convention?
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Tim Roberts</name>
  <email>t...@munged.microcosmotalk.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-04T02:33:44Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/a9f6429f09f95d5a/ac3528c3e15145db?show_docid=ac3528c3e15145db</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/a9f6429f09f95d5a/ac3528c3e15145db?show_docid=ac3528c3e15145db"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Calling convention odd?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  That&#39;s not accurate. You can say &amp;quot;they do less work per instruction&amp;quot; &lt;br&gt; compared to CISC, but not &amp;quot;per CPU clock&amp;quot;. The typical RISC set runs one &lt;br&gt; instruction per clock, and it&#39;s difficult to do much better than that. &lt;br&gt; Most x86 compilers use the CPUs as if they were RISC anyway, by eschewing &lt;br&gt; the more complicated instructions. Look at the CPU code generated by an
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Jim Carlock</name>
  <email>jcarl...@munged.microcosmotalk.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-02T23:01:31Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/c448e02fc604872a/54583ba57b80ee73?show_docid=54583ba57b80ee73</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/c448e02fc604872a/54583ba57b80ee73?show_docid=54583ba57b80ee73"/>
  <title type="text">comp.lang.asm.x86 FAQ</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Before posting technical questions please read the FAQ: &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://www.frontiernet.net/~fys/faq/index.htm&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; You may also download a copy in zip format from the above site. &lt;br&gt; The original version (which has not been updated since 21 March 2000) &lt;br&gt; can still be accessed from: &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/comp/comp.lang.asm.x86.html&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt;
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Robert Redelmeier</name>
  <email>red...@ev1.net.invalid</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-02T05:48:42Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/a3373b2f5ac6bda0/29f301d05c5d8260?show_docid=29f301d05c5d8260</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/a3373b2f5ac6bda0/29f301d05c5d8260?show_docid=29f301d05c5d8260"/>
  <title type="text">Re: NOTICE: C.L.A.X service interruption!</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Jim Carlock &amp;lt;jcarl...@munged.microcosmotal k.com&amp;gt; wrote in part: &lt;br&gt; ssh is the std in the Unix world, you could look at &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://sshwindows.sourceforge.net&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://www.freesshd.com&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; for host [server] software. &lt;br&gt; These should give you a fully encrypted channel, with public keys &lt;br&gt; used to exchange a session [private] key _before_ you login with
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>BGB / cr88192</name>
  <email>cr88...@munged.microcosmotalk.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2010-01-02T01:59:48Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/a24f2d180dfc6e9b/77dc2c830dea3818?show_docid=77dc2c830dea3818</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_thread/thread/a24f2d180dfc6e9b/77dc2c830dea3818?show_docid=77dc2c830dea3818"/>
  <title type="text">Re: multithreading in Asm</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  this is more true of processes than of threads... &lt;br&gt; the OS handles threads, but is not necessary to use it to have threads... &lt;br&gt; more so, in the case of many HLL&#39;s, it is not even really necessary that &lt;br&gt; there be multiple OS threads to implement multiple HLL threads. this could &lt;br&gt; be the case either with an interpreter (which could jump between interpreter
  </summary>
  </entry>
</feed>
