Re: new disassembler vs IDA (was Re: 8085 Dissasembly?)

> On Apr 19, 2018, at 9:19 AM, Eric Smith via cctalk > wrote: > > For the 1802, I've used a really crude disassembler written in C. The 1802 > instruction set isn't very complicated, so a disassembler for it isn't > either. It's been so many years since I actually

new disassembler vs IDA (was Re: 8085 Dissasembly?)

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctech < cct...@classiccmp.org> wrote: > Some of the future reverse engineering projects I have on my to-do list > involve the CDP1802 processor, which IDA presently doesn't support. When I > get to them I'll have to decide whether to use

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On 19 April 2018 at 17:37, Liam Proven wrote: > > I don't know when a word stops being new, but that one is a good 35 years old: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenbug (But saying that, I like it, too. Even as a rookie programmer around the time it was defined, in my

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On 19 April 2018 at 13:27, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > > From: Charles Anthony > > > discovered that changing the executable would change the behavior -- a > > heisenbug. > > Ooh, love that neologism. I don't know when a word stops being new, but that one

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

> From: Charles Anthony > discovered that changing the executable would change the behavior -- a > heisenbug. Ooh, love that neologism. Noel

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

> On Apr 18, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Torfinn Ingolfsen via cctech > wrote: > > Since it has not been mentioned yet: NF6X's dismantler supports the > 8085 (and a couple of other CPUs): https://github.com/NF6X/dismantler > It is written in Python, so it should run on any

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >>> > I always found it amusing that many programs (even FORMAT!) would fail > with the wrong error message if their internal DMA buffers happened to > straddle a 64K block boundary. THAT was a direct result

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

For the simulator part, perhaps GNUSim8085 can be used: https://gnusim8085.github.io/ Again, I have no personal experience with it (yet). HTH -- Regards, Torfinn Ingolfsen

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On 17/04/2018 14:25, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Johnny Eriksson via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: Bill Gunshannon wrote: Many of us think that the advent of the x86 architecture is what led to masochism. ... or masochism led to the x86

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, allison via cctalk wrote: > >> Looked at 8086 and decided it was a 8080 with a bag on the side. >> It was and still is irrational. >> > > OTOH, Micropro had 8080 originated Wordstar

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, allison via cctalk wrote: Looked at 8086 and decided it was a 8080 with a bag on the side. It was and still is irrational. In the days of assembly language and hand edited machine code, An 8080 with a bag on the side made it extremely quick and easy to port legacy (8080)

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 9:12 AM, allison via cctalk > > wrote: > > > Looked at 8086 and decided it was a 8080 with a bag on the side. > > It was and still is irrational. > > > > With

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On 04/17/2018 02:21 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > How many started coding for a machine writing machine code? > > I recall that the IBM 1620 SPS coding forms had two sides--one for > coding assembly (SPS); the other labeled "IBM 1620 Absolute Coding > System". Basically a form with the

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 9:12 AM, allison via cctalk wrote: > Looked at 8086 and decided it was a 8080 with a bag on the side. > It was and still is irrational. > With the 386 architecture (32-bit), they actually cleaned it up quite a bit. I won't go nearly so far as to

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Richard Sheppard via cctalk wrote: >> Lastly, I wonder if there might be some kind of checksum check to prevent >> tampering. Is there a common way this is handled in 8085 world? Or is it >> entirely programmer dependent? > > One approach

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

How many started coding for a machine writing machine code? I recall that the IBM 1620 SPS coding forms had two sides--one for coding assembly (SPS); the other labeled "IBM 1620 Absolute Coding System". Basically a form with the first 5 positions reserved for the address, 2 positions for the

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

> Lastly, I wonder if there might be some kind of checksum check to prevent > tampering. Is there a common way this is handled in 8085 world? Or is it > entirely programmer dependent? One approach that be doable for you is if you have a good ROM with a known checksum, make your changes then

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Tapley, Mark via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On Apr 17, 2018, at 8:25 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk > wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Johnny Eriksson via cctalk < > > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > >> Bill

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On 04/17/2018 11:07 AM, Brian L. Stuart via cctalk wrote: > On Tue, 4/17/18, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk >> wrote: >>> Disassembly is never lots of fun, >> Some of us might disagree. >>

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On 04/17/2018 10:59 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > > On 04/17/2018 09:25 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Johnny Eriksson via cctalk < >> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: >> >>> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>> Many of us think that the advent of the x86

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On Tue, 4/17/18, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk > wrote: >> Disassembly is never lots of fun, > > Some of us might disagree. > But then, some of us might be masochists. I was just thinking the

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

From: cctalk <cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org> on behalf of Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 6:07:21 AM To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: Re: 8085 Dissasembly? On 04/17/2018 08:04 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: >

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Johnny Eriksson via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > > > Many of us think that the advent of the x86 architecture is what led to > > masochism. > > ... or masochism led to the x86 architecture. > I think you are confused maybe.

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

Bill Gunshannon wrote: > Many of us think that the advent of the x86 architecture is what led to > masochism. ... or masochism led to the x86 architecture. > bill --Johnny

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On 04/17/2018 08:04 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > > From: Eric Smith > > > But then, some of us might be masochists. > > I think pretty much by definition if you're into vintage computers, you have > to be a masochist... :-) > > Many of us think that the advent of the x86

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

> From: Eric Smith > But then, some of us might be masochists. I think pretty much by definition if you're into vintage computers, you have to be a masochist... :-) Noel

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 07:01:51PM +, W2HX via cctech wrote: >Hi friends. I have a 1990's vintage commercial radio system that uses an >80C85A CPU. I am looking to hopefully modify the firmware to make some >small changes in its behavior. The firmware is contained in two EPROMS. > >Can

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On 04/16/2018 03:01 PM, W2HX via cctech wrote: > Hi friends. I have a 1990's vintage commercial radio system that uses an > 80C85A CPU. I am looking to hopefully modify the firmware to make some small > changes in its behavior. The firmware is contained in two EPROMS. > > > Can anyone recommend

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > Disassembly is never lots of fun, > Some of us might disagree. But then, some of us might be masochists.

RE: 8085 Dissasembly?

Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: 8085 Dissasembly? You could post the EPROM files you have online somewhere for other people to take a quick look. Maybe create a thread on the vcfed forum and add them as an attachment to a message there. If you zip them up they should be sm

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

On 04/16/2018 05:35 PM, Glen Slick via cctalk wrote: > I have only tried using IDA Pro a couple of times. I haven't learned > how to use it well enough to be what I have used for similar 8-bit CPU > disassembly tasks in the past. I have just written my own basic > functionality 8085 / Z80 / 8051

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

You could post the EPROM files you have online somewhere for other people to take a quick look. Maybe create a thread on the vcfed forum and add them as an attachment to a message there. If you zip them up they should be small enough for an attachment. I have only tried using IDA Pro a couple of

Re: 8085 Dissasembly?

IDA Pro will do 8080/8085 and is very nice -- especially if you have no source and are having to reverse-engineer the whole thing yourself. The commercial version is expensive, but there's a free version. I don't remember if the free version includes 8080/8085 mode. The strings may be packed

8085 Dissasembly?

Hi friends. I have a 1990's vintage commercial radio system that uses an 80C85A CPU. I am looking to hopefully modify the firmware to make some small changes in its behavior. The firmware is contained in two EPROMS. Can anyone recommend a decent disassembler to use with this? Preferably