Universal Disassemblers vs. Universal MIILs

[Paul Fox]

In article <e8amX#27Cbjc=eric at snark.UUCP> eric at snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>In article <7226 at ihlpl.att.com>, knudsen at ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes:
>>In article <e6m10#2eDFfC=eric at snark.UUCP>, I write:
>
>P.S. on the Cracker concept:
>
>Does anyone know of something like this having been actually implemented?
>
Yes - I did this once. It was for Z-80 machine code, and I did it for
a Z-80 ICE for which I needed to extend its functionality. It
was pretty easy, and it was command line driven. (You would create
shell scripts containing the long command lines).

It allowed you to do things like specify what the RST instructions
were for, and allowed things like having some of the RST instructions
being followed by a byte of sub-opcode;

It allowed you to add labels (although not comments for particular lines).
Thus as you understood what parts of the code were doing you could tell
it the labels to use, and any references to that address would come out
symbolically.

Also, since its diffcult to make the machine decide whether something
is code or data, it allowed you to mark selected areas as being 
tables and thus avoid disassembling it. 


=====================
     //        o      All opinions are my own.
   (O)        ( )     The powers that be ...
  /    \_____( )
 o  \         |
    /\____\__/        Tel: +44 628 891313 x. 212
  _/_/   _/_/         UUCP:     fox at marlow.uucp