On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 13:43:23 -0600, Roland Schiradin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>doesn't make sense to me. If an instruction exists in the code the disassembler >should decode them based on the latest level of possible opcodes. Why would >you limit this? It's useful to limit the opcodes understood, because the disassembler (any disassembler for this architecture - not just IBM's) is less than perfect at understanding what is code and what is data. If you know something about the module you are working on (typically it is some legacy lost-source thing written some time ago), then it is better to have things that could not be code in that particular module shown as data rather than bogus instructions. ASMDASM does allow you to tell it that an area is code-only or data-only, but often enough you don't know that in detail early in the disassembling process, and it helps not to have your work cluttered with instructions that could not have been intended in, say, 1987. To this end it would also be useful to be able to have privileged instructions ignored. Tony H. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
