EXE2BIN, COM, EXE File
Thierry DELHAISE
Hi All,
I would like to have some more information about EXE and COM executables
files under DOS. I read that for all ths executable format, my
compiler/linker when genearating LE files let room a the begining of the
binary code for the PSP. PSP is mostly a structure pad by DOS (some kind of
parameters use by executable (?) and by DOS itself). But does my binary code
refer to it when I work with my assembler ? In fact does in the process of
assembling/linking, assembler/linker modify my code to refer to some
parameters to finaly giving me my binary executable.
Refering to all those questions, what make EXE2BIN ? And what is the
difference between a COM and a SYS file. In the coding sheme I know that for
making a SYS file, I must specify that my code is based on ORG 0 at the
oposite of a COM file base on ORG 100h. Finally a SYS file is mostly a COM
file by the fact that they use only one SEGMENT for Code and Data. Does to
obtain a SYS file you just have to scratch the 100h first binary bytes of
the final COM file ? Or does some references built by the compiler/linker
inside a COM files won't allow me to use this technic ? Why EXE2BIN only
work with an EXE file in input and not a COM file ? Does EXE2BIN will allow
me to have a BIN file (so a SYS file) with an EXE based on Medium memory
Model or Large ( with EXE with more than 1 total segment ).
Finally does with MASM or TASM there is a way to gain a BIN/SYS file
directly without having to use EXE2BIN. Does an another Assembler (with
Intel syntax) have this ability ?
Sure a lot of questions, but even if I don't obtain for all a respons, any
shorts respons will be appreciate
THX
Thierry DELHAISE
Caisson
Thierry DELHAISE <thierry....@delhaise.com> schreef in artikel
<stn9b5s...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> Hi All,
Hello Thierry,
> I would like to have some more information about EXE and COM
> executables files under DOS. I read that for all ths executable
> format, my compiler/linker when genearating LE files let room
> a the begining of the binary code for the PSP. PSP is mostly
> a structure pad by DOS (some kind of parameters use by
> executable (?) and by DOS itself).
Yep. The old INT 21h vector is stored into it. The segment where your
Environment-variables are is at (IIRC) 002Ch. A INT 20h (terminate) is
placed at 0000h. And ofcourse the Command-line string at 0080h.
> But does my binary code refer to it when I work with my assembler ?
Yes.
> In fact does in the process of assembling/linking, assembler/linker
> modify my code to refer to some parameters to finaly giving me my
> binary executable.
No.
> Refering to all those questions, what make EXE2BIN ?
EXE2BIN converts (as the name implies) an EXE-style file (all segments
overlapped !) to a Binary file. That Binary file has an ORG of 0000h (just
like the .SYS-file ....)
> And what is the difference between a COM and a SYS file. In the
> coding scheme I know that for making a SYS file, I must specify
> that my code is based on ORG 0 at the oposite of a COM file
> base on ORG 100h.
There is your answer. A SYS-file does not get a PSP prepended to it when
it get's "executed".
> Finally a SYS file is mostly a COM file by the fact that they use only
> one SEGMENT for Code and Data.
BOTH files use only one segement for code & data ! Although a SYS-file has
(mostly) no own Stack-segment...
> Does to obtain a SYS file you just have to scratch the 100h first
> binary bytes of the final COM file ? Or does some references
> built by the compiler/linker inside a COM files won't allow me to
> use this technic ?
You can't just "scratch" some bytes off a file to convert it to some other
type !
You will have to create a file with the ORG 000h (an EXE-type of file ! ),
and convert that to a Binary (and afterwards rename it to .SYS).
> Why EXE2BIN only work with an EXE file in input and not a COM
> file ?
Because Binary-files *must* have an offset of 0000h, and you can't generate
a COM-file with that org.
> Will EXE2BIN allow me to have a BIN file (so a SYS file) with an EXE
> based on Medium memory Model or Large ( with EXE with more than
> 1 total segment ).
Nope ! An .EXE file has got a Relocation-table stuck in front of it to
recalculate (for example) segement-adresses to wherever the program get's
loaded. A Binary file (like the .COM-style file) has got no such
mechanism.
> Finally does with MASM or TASM there is a way to gain a BIN/SYS file
> directly without having to use EXE2BIN.
Not that I know of. You could ofcourse write a Batch-file to do the work ?
> Does an another Assembler (with Intel syntax) have this ability ?
Yes some Linkers can. But most of them can't generate EXE-style files ...
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Haye van den Oever
wrote:
>
>Thierry DELHAISE <thierry....@delhaise.com> schreef in artikel
><stn9b5s...@corp.supernews.com>...
[snip]
>> Will EXE2BIN allow me to have a BIN file (so a SYS file) with an EXE
>> based on Medium memory Model or Large ( with EXE with more than
>> 1 total segment ).
>
>Nope ! An .EXE file has got a Relocation-table stuck in front of it to
>recalculate (for example) segement-adresses to wherever the program get's
>loaded. A Binary file (like the .COM-style file) has got no such
>mechanism.
Ok, but it's not entirely clear what Thierry is asking for here. I got
the impression that he is trying to figure out how to create a SYS & EXE
combo, e.g. like SETVER.EXE and EMM386.EXE, which are both device
drivers (loadable in CONFIG.SYS) and DOS executables. But of course
EXE2BIN cannot be used to create such combos.
>
>> Finally does with MASM or TASM there is a way to gain a BIN/SYS file
>> directly without having to use EXE2BIN.
>
>Not that I know of. You could ofcourse write a Batch-file to do the work ?
This is (largely) incorrect. MASM 5.1 could not create .COM or .SYS
files without the help of EXE2BIN or some similar utility, but MASM 6.11
certainly can. TASM & TLINK (all versions) can also create .COM and .SYS
files without using additional tools. Suppose you have a source file
TEST.ASM for a .COM program, then just do:
TASM /M TEST
TLINK /T TEST
On the other hand, if the source file TEST.ASM is for a device driver
(org 0), then TLINK will issue an error message if you try to run TLINK
/T TEST, because a .COM program is supposed to start at offset 100h.
However, you can overcome this difficulty if you explicitly specify the
output file:
TLINK /T TEST, TEST.SYS
>
>> Does an another Assembler (with Intel syntax) have this ability ?
>
>Yes some Linkers can. But most of them can't generate EXE-style files ...
>
Incorrect. I know of no DOS linker which can create .COM programs but
cannot create .EXE programs. Incidentally, NASM can create both .COM
programs and DOS device drivers without additional tools. But of course
this is an assembler, not a linker.
Haye van den Oever
Caisson
Haye van den Oever <hvdo...@stad.dsl.nl> schreef in artikel
<84cD5.20881$TP6.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 17:42:25 -0000, "Caisson" <cai...@telebyte.nl>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Thierry DELHAISE <thierry....@delhaise.com> schreef in artikel
> ><stn9b5s...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Will EXE2BIN allow me to have a BIN file (so a SYS file) with an EXE
> >> based on Medium memory Model or Large ( with EXE with more than
> >> 1 total segment ).
> >
> >Nope ! An .EXE file has got a Relocation-table stuck in front of it to
> >recalculate (for example) segement-adresses to wherever the program
get's
> >loaded. A Binary file (like the .COM-style file) has got no such
> >mechanism.
>
> Ok, but it's not entirely clear what Thierry is asking for here. I got
> the impression that he is trying to figure out how to create a SYS & EXE
> combo, e.g. like SETVER.EXE and EMM386.EXE, which are both device
> drivers (loadable in CONFIG.SYS) and DOS executables. But of course
> EXE2BIN cannot be used to create such combos.
Ahhh ... I did not see that one ! Well, if that's the case, you don't
need to convert the combined SYS/EXE file with EXE2BIN. A device-driver
can have a .EXE extention, and still being loaded as where it a .SYS-type
of file. Just take care that the image that makes up the device-driver is
at ORG 0000h .
> >> Finally does with MASM or TASM there is a way to gain a BIN/SYS file
> >> directly without having to use EXE2BIN.
> >
> >Not that I know of. You could ofcourse write a Batch-file to do the
work ?
>
> This is (largely) incorrect. MASM 5.1 could not create .COM or .SYS
> files without the help of EXE2BIN or some similar utility, but MASM 6.11
> certainly can. TASM & TLINK (all versions) can also create .COM and .SYS
> files without using additional tools. Suppose you have a source file
> TEST.ASM for a .COM program, then just do:
>
> TASM /M TEST
> TLINK /T TEST
>
> On the other hand, if the source file TEST.ASM is for a device driver
> (org 0), then TLINK will issue an error message if you try to run TLINK
> /T TEST, because a .COM program is supposed to start at offset 100h.
> However, you can overcome this difficulty if you explicitly specify the
> output file:
>
> TLINK /T TEST, TEST.SYS
So you see, you get to learn something new every day. Thank's ! I did not
know that one. (I'm still using TASM 1.01 and TLINK 2.0)
> >> Does an another Assembler (with Intel syntax) have this ability ?
> >
> >Yes some Linkers can. But most of them can't generate EXE-style files
..
> Incorrect. I know of no DOS linker which can create .COM programs but
> cannot create .EXE programs. Incidentally, NASM can create both .COM
> programs and DOS device drivers without additional tools. But of course
> this is an assembler, not a linker.
Ahh, I made a mistake in my answer. I ment to say that there are
*Assemblers* that can create .COM-style files (without the help of a
Linker, mind you), but I do not know of such a program that can create
EXE-type of files too.
My combination of TASM 1.01 & TLINK 2.0 (*very* old) can create .COM & .EXE
type of files. I could not find any switches that would enable me to
create other types, but as Haye showed me, there is a possibility to force
it.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Frank Kotler
Caisson wrote:
> > >> Does an another Assembler (with Intel syntax) have this ability ?
> > >
> > >Yes some Linkers can. But most of them can't generate EXE-style files
> ..
>
> > Incorrect. I know of no DOS linker which can create .COM programs but
> > cannot create .EXE programs. Incidentally, NASM can create both .COM
> > programs and DOS device drivers without additional tools. But of course
> > this is an assembler, not a linker.
>
> Ahh, I made a mistake in my answer. I ment to say that there are
> *Assemblers* that can create .COM-style files (without the help of a
> Linker, mind you), but I do not know of such a program that can create
> EXE-type of files too.
Nasm will generate .COM and .SYS files, and if you don't consider some
macros cheating, will generate .EXE files directly, too. This isn't a
.COM file just re-named "exe" - it's a real MZ executable. A set of
macros exist to do this for elf executables, and I've seen a Nasm
program that generated the "world's smallest windows program" - a real
PE executable with a stub and everything - using the same technique.
;--------------------------------------------
; nasm -f bin -o hello.exe hello.asm
%include "exebin.mac" ; find this in the "misc"
; directory - might have
EXE_begin ; to download the source
; to get it.
section .text
mov ah,9
mov dx,msg
int 21h
mov ah,4Ch
int 21h
section .data
msg db 'hello, world$'
EXE_end
;-----------------------------------------
I doubt if this trickery gives the full flexibility of a "real" .EXE
made with a linker, but it works on simple stuff. I don't know what's
required for a "combo" .SYS / .EXE file, but I imagine Nasm could be
persuaded to do it.
Best,
Frank
Jerda
Any source to go deeper about these matters???
Thanks, bye!!!
alcanta...@nospicedham.gmail.com
'exe2bin' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.
that is the error guys what would i do?
Bernhard Schornak
16 bit software cannot be run on modern 64 bit operating systems -
neither Windows nor any other 64 bit OS supports executable 16 bit
code. It required too much work to provide an additional API layer
to translate 16 bit calling conventions to 32 bit (which then were
passed to the real API via WoW64).
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
Rod Pemberton
wrote:
Frank, just how did this get approved?
This post should've been on comp.os.msdos.misc or somesuch ...
> I just wanna ask guys.
Well, only guys are going to respond here ...
So, your request is granted. Happy now?
Oh, I see, you forgot "you" between "ask" and "guys". :)
> i have windows 8
I don't. How is it?
Do you have the 32-bit version or 64-bit version?
Yes, that's what I thought ...
Well, knowing the answer to that would be a good starting point.
> i put masm615 on my c: and the exe2bin is not working
> 'exe2bin' is not recognized as an internal or external
> command, operable program or batch file.
> that is the error
No, I disagree.
The error is you posted to Usenet on a thread from year
2000 since you're using Google Groups and don't know that
there is a difference between Google Groups and Usenet.
The mistake is not searching for this answer via Google.
There are threads all over the internet on various forums
where people have asked the same thing, e.g., search
for "EXE2BIN 64-bit". Some have useful info:
http://en.dllxz.com/down/exe2bin.exe_147.html
http://www.masmforum.com/board/index.php?PHPSESSID=786dd40408172108b65a5a36b09c88c0&topic=15118;prev_next=next
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490635.aspx
> guys what would i do?
Nothing. Yes, the answer is "nothing." You _would_ do nothing.
Apparently, EXE2BIN is not working. Didn't you just tell us
that? Forgetful! That's what you did do. So, that's what you
would do, if the event of doing nothing hadn't already occurred. ;-)
Did you mean what _should_ you do? Well, then, it depends on
the answers to the questions above, seriously.
If you have a 64-bit version of Windows, you may not be
able to execute *any* DOS programs. You may need to install
an emulator or simulator, e.g., DOSBOX, dosemu, VMWare,
Bochs, QEMU, etc. And/or, you may need to install a real
DOS, either standalone or for some of the emulators. Some
free versions of DOS exist like FreeDOS and OpenDOS.
If you have a 32-bit version of Windows, you may need to just
get a working EXE2BIN, or re-extract the one in MASM package.
E.g., many C compilers have a version of EXE2BIN, sometimes
under a different name. Or, you can find replacements on the
Internet:
EXE2BINs
http://ftp.freenet.de/pub/ftp.simtel.net/pub/simtelnet/msdos/asmutl/bin.zip
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/dos/exe2bin/
ftp://ftp.columbia.edu/pub/packet-drivers/src/exe2com.c
DOSes
http://www.freedos.org/
http://www.drdosprojects.de/
Emulators etc.
http://wiki.qemu.org
http://bochs.sourceforge.net/
http://dosemu.sourceforge.net/
http://www.dosbox.com/
http://www.mess.org/
Sorry about the ribbing!
Good luck,
Rod Pemberton
Frank Kotler
The error message you quote sounds like "file not found" to me (make
sure it's there and on the path). ASSuming that Windows 8 is a 64-bit
OS, it isn't going to work anyway, but I thought the error message was
slightly different...
"DOS under Windows", or even "plain DOS" if you load emm386.sys, depends
on vm86 mode to operate. This is a "task" running under protected mode
which essentially creates a "fake" 16-bit machine where we can run
16-bit code. Once a 64-bit CPU is put into "long mode" (64-bit), vm86
mode is no longer supported. This is AMD's fault. Microsoft is innocent
- just this one time. That's why it won't work.
The easiest solution is probably DosBox (Bernhard and Rod cover some
other alternatives). If you're serious about DOS (it doesn't look as if
it's going to make that comeback some of us were hoping for) repartition
your drive or install another drive and install DOS (I like FreeDos). If
you don't load emm386 (or similar) you'll be in "real real mode DOS" and
can do anything you want. DOS won't help you much, but it won't prevent
you. Once we're in protected mode, it's protected from *us* and we have
no choice but talk to the OS and let the OS talk to the hardware.
Depends on what you want to do.
Best,
Frank
Frank Kotler
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 18:42:04 -0400,
> <alcanta...@nospicedham.gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Frank, just how did this get approved?
decide whether you were insulting another poster or just "ribbing".
Since you provide answers, I would have approved it anyway... probably.
Oh, do you mean how did alcantaracloyd's post get approved? I hit the
'a' key. I also hit the 'y' key to put him/her on the whitelist. If you
disagree with this, you can easily become moderator. Just say the word.
Seriously, we really need a "backup moderator". I'm not a young guy, and
I don't take very good care of myself, so I'll probably kick off without
prior notification. If this happens without a second name known to "The
Board" it will disrupt the functioning of this group. If anyone wants to
be more active, that can be arranged, but "minimal duties" will be to
name another moderator if I become unreachable for any reason. I feel
pretty good today, but tomorrow's up for grabs. Any takers?
Best,
Frank
fbko...@myfairpoint.net
Stephen Pelc
alcanta...@nospicedham.gmail.com wrote:
>I just wanna ask guys. i have windows 8 and i put masm615 on my c: and the exe2bin is not working
>'exe2bin' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
>operable program or batch file.
run 8086 programs. To do this, go to
http://www.dosbox.com
and download and install DOSbox.
Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc, steph...@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
Kerr Mudd-John
that you cut the spam, but I doubt there's any flame-wars about to kick
off.
> Best,
> Frank
> fbko...@myfairpoint.net
>
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
Trifle Menot
Frank Kotler
favor doing so, but I am given to understand that it would cause more
problems than it would solve. (some servers removing the moderation flag
and some not - propagation would be erratic).
Best,
Frank
Trifle Menot
<fbko...@nospicedham.myfairpoint.net> wrote:
> Any progress on this? Is the group still moderated?
>No, and yes. If it were practical to "de-moderate" the group I would
>favor doing so, but I am given to understand that it would cause more
>problems than it would solve. (some servers removing the moderation flag
>and some not - propagation would be erratic).
then, and would hate for it to disappear.
How does usenet get rid of dead moderated groups if the sole moderator
exits this world?
Frank Kotler
...
> exits this world?
Discussion (Removal) on news:news.groups.proposals - one going on right now.
Best,
Frank
Rod Pemberton
<trifl...@nospicedham.protocol.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 03:30:04 -0500, Frank Kotler
> <fbko...@nospicedham.myfairpoint.net> wrote:
>>> Any progress on this? Is the group still moderated?
>>
>> No, and yes. If it were practical to "de-moderate" the group I would
>> favor doing so, but I am given to understand that it would cause more
>> problems than it would solve. (some servers removing the moderation
>> flag and some not - propagation would be erratic).
>
> I'm no candidate for moderation duties. But I read the group now and
> then, and would hate for it to disappear.
Or, are you afraid that the moderation will disappear?
A few years back, people really wanted the _moderation_ to continue,
but post volume to the newsgroup has dropped dramatically, it seems.
If you aren't concerned about moderation, then there are a bunch of
other low-use groups with similar topicality where most would move
to if this group has no method to post messages, e.g., alt.lang.asm,
comp.lang.asm. alt.lang.asm is still active, although marginally.
comp.lang.asm is effectively dead. comp.* groups tend to distribute
to more free/open Usenet text-only servers since many alt.* groups
are blocked on them. So, there are merits for both choices. We
could also cross-post to both to ensure a larger group.
> How does usenet get rid of dead moderated groups if the sole
> moderator exits this world?
We can always move to another group such as those metioned above.
It that happens, we can ask Frank send a monthly reminder to
comp.lang.asm.x86 that it's closed, tells people where we've
moved to, at least until Frank and Terje can no longer justify
supporting clax.
Rod Pemberton
Trifle Menot
<bu...@nospicedham.notnotnontnooatno.cmm> wrote:
>Are you afraid for the group to disappear?
>Or, are you afraid that the moderation will disappear?
>A few years back, people really wanted the _moderation_ to continue,
>but post volume to the newsgroup has dropped dramatically, it seems.
>You weren't prematurely predicting Frank's demise were you? ;-)
warning. That could happen to me too, but in my case, nobody would
notice.
De-moderation seems like a good idea. Frank said that may cause erratic
propagation, but erratic is better than none.
Robert Wessel
messages will usually be held up by moderation, to *all* groups.
Rod Pemberton
AFAIK, comp.lang.asm and alt.lang.asm are both unmoderated.
Rod Pemberton
Trifle Menot
<bu...@nospicedham.notnotnontnooatno.cmm> wrote:
>Note that comp.lang.asm without the .x86 is not comp.lang.asm.x86.
>AFAIK, comp.lang.asm and alt.lang.asm are both unmoderated.
server I use (Eternal September).
Terje Mathisen
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 14:46:17 -0500, Trifle Menot
>> moderator exits this world?
a new moderator.
> You weren't prematurely predicting Frank's demise were you? ;-)
>
> We can always move to another group such as those metioned above.
>
> It that happens, we can ask Frank send a monthly reminder to
> comp.lang.asm.x86 that it's closed, tells people where we've
> moved to, at least until Frank and Terje can no longer justify
> supporting clax.
as I live (I'm 57 now), so since I'm a male Norwegian in above average
health that's probably ~25 years or so.
Terje
--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
Rod Pemberton
<trifl...@nospicedham.protocol.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 00:20:14 -0500, "Rod Pemberton"
> <bu...@nospicedham.notnotnontnooatno.cmm> wrote:
>> Note that comp.lang.asm without the .x86 is not comp.lang.asm.x86.
>> AFAIK, comp.lang.asm and alt.lang.asm are both unmoderated.
>
> Does comp.lang.asm have any traffic?
Textnews
0 2015 1 2014 0 2013 3 2012 2 2011 5 2010 (continues)
-has threads going back to 2006
Google Groups
0 2015 2 2014 (none archived) 3 2004 3 2003 (continues)
-has threads going back to 1991
> It's not even listed by the news server I use (Eternal September).
AIOE doesn't carry it either, which would prevent me and others
from posting to it. It seems, Frank managed to post to it in
2010, 2009, etc. I'm wondering if it was removed recently,
or if the archive stoppage in 2004 on Google Groups indicates
something.
Rod Pemberton