Re: Optable option of disassembler

2007-11-12 Thread Edward Jaffe
Lynd, Eugene (Contractor) (J6C) wrote: Tony expressed my view of the problem very well - sorry I didn't. Typically when we use the Disassembler it is for very old code. But since there is in fact an OPTABLE parameter documented, that suggests IBM also sees the need for the feature. My questio

Re: Optable option of disassembler

2007-11-12 Thread Lynd, Eugene (Contractor) (J6C)
Tony Harminc wrote: >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 so

Re: OPTABLE option of Disassembler

2007-11-09 Thread Gerhard Postpischil
Craddock, Chris wrote: if it were archaic, or "dead" code, the length of the operands is dictated by the 1st two bits of the opcode so the disassembler would presumably skip the correct number of bytes and interpret the next instruction correctly. In other words it would get back into it's stride

Re: OPTABLE option of Disassembler

2007-11-08 Thread Binyamin Dissen
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 16:07:15 -0600 Tony Harminc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :>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 possibl

Re: OPTABLE option of Disassembler

2007-11-08 Thread Craddock, Chris
Roland Schiradin 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 all a guess. One would typically assume that, if you're disassembling code that r

Re: OPTABLE option of Disassembler

2007-11-08 Thread Tony Harminc
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

Re: OPTABLE option of Disassembler

2007-11-08 Thread Edward Jaffe
Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: Any idea which opcodes are duplicates? Where are the vector facility opcodes documented? I don't know about official IBM documentation, but Abe Kornelis has an excellent overview at his hlasm.com site. Check this out: http://www.hlasm.com/english/opcd00.htm C

Re: OPTABLE option of Disassembler

2007-11-08 Thread Farley, Peter x23353
> -Original Message- > From: Edward Jaffe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:13 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: OPTABLE option of Disassembler > > David Cole wrote: > > Because sometimes opcodes change meanings? Correct

Re: OPTABLE option of Disassembler

2007-11-08 Thread McKown, John
> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edward Jaffe > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:13 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: OPTABLE option of Disassembler > > > David Cole wrote: &g

Re: OPTABLE option of Disassembler

2007-11-08 Thread McKown, John
> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edward Jaffe > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:13 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: OPTABLE option of Disassembler > > > David Cole wrote: &g

Re: OPTABLE option of Disassembler

2007-11-08 Thread Edward Jaffe
David Cole wrote: Because sometimes opcodes change meanings? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that some of the new opcodes that came out in the late 90s were the same as some of the old vector processor opcodes. ... I never knew that! I always assumed all new opcodes were completely

Re: OPTABLE option of Disassembler

2007-11-08 Thread David Cole
Because sometimes opcodes change meanings? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that some of the new opcodes that came out in the late 90s were the same as some of the old vector processor opcodes. ... Dave Cole REPLY TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cole Software WEB PAGE: ht

Re: OPTABLE option of Disassembler

2007-11-08 Thread Roland Schiradin
Hi Gene, doesn't make sense to me. If an instruction exists in the code the disassemble should decode them based on the latest level of possible opcodes. Why would you limit this? Roland >The High level Assembler accepts and uses an OPTABLE parm which lets >you limit the valid op codes to an

Re: OPTABLE option of Disassembler

2007-11-08 Thread Edward Jaffe
Lynd, Eugene (Contractor) (J6C) wrote: The High level Assembler accepts and uses an OPTABLE parm which lets you limit the valid op codes to an architecture level such as XA or 370 (and optionally list the valid OP codes at that level). The Disassembler (ASMDASM) has a comparable SPTABLE option w

OPTABLE option of Disassembler

2007-11-08 Thread Lynd, Eugene (Contractor) (J6C)
The High level Assembler accepts and uses an OPTABLE parm which lets you limit the valid op codes to an architecture level such as XA or 370 (and optionally list the valid OP codes at that level). The Disassembler (ASMDASM) has a comparable ÓPTABLE option which "Specifies the operation code table