Am Saturday 11 August 2012 14:46:53 schrieb Martin: > On 11/08/2012 13:32, Rainer Stratmann wrote: > > Am Saturday 11 August 2012 14:15:11 schrieb Martin: > >> If that changes, then your code fails. > > > > I can easily adopt the code then. > > There are not many different ways for a call. > > > > http://css.csail.mit.edu/6.858/2011/readings/i386/CALL.htm > > Yes, so the amount of effort may increase drastically. New CPU may bring > new ways too.
But not the 80x86 CPU. It is still the same opcode for a call ($E8). By now since 36 Years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8086 What do you mean with drastically? At the moment there is no unsolved whish to this topic. > And with each added way, the already existing risk of false positives > (the byte sequence can occur as subset of another statement, and then it > isn't a call at all) does increase. Note that it is only added to the table if also the adress is equal. I am aware of 2 byte opcodes, but I see no obstacle in this. If there are very unlikely more results then expected it will not be a problem. The search through the whole program is mainly for me if adding new text snippets or a complete new language. I will be able to solve most requirements, because I am an experienced programmer. On assembler language, too. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
