ELF loading
in [ASM]
|
From: //o//annabee on 30 Aug 2007 05:39 P� Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:12:10 +0100, skrev Evenbit <nbaker2328(a)charter.net>: > On Aug 30, 12:44 am, "rh...(a)cs.ucr.edu" <rh...(a)cs.ucr.edu> wrote: >> >> Joel doesn't own the name. So he couldn't take Rene to court. >> OTOH, the ReactOS team *has* asked Rene to stop using their project's >> name in his product name. The ethical thing for Rene to do would be to >> switch to a different name. > > Well that is extremely easy to comply with: > > RosAsm = Rene's Open Source Assembler > > If you've payed attention to the "About" and "FAQ" pages on websites, > you'd know that acronyms change their meaning quite a bit in this > business. I'd estimate maybe 2 or 3 dozen projects have done so in > the span of the last fifteen years. Of course. The argument is also absurd from other points of view. It is in fact an argument that can only hurt the one saying it. But thats no news anymore. Now.. about the name. Spasm was the only real name RosAsm should have ever had. This is a beautilful name, whereas RosAsm is only beautiful after you see the logo. Spasm is such a beautiful name because programming in RosAsm _is_ a bit like a spasm. Could even consider a name derived from some acronym of Speed, between some acronym of Drug or addiction. Because that what using RosAsm turns out to be. Its a drug that the more you take it the more you want. Seriously here: One of the most important properties of the monosource and the rightclick functionality is that once you get going, there is no stopping you. RosAsm never interfer with your thought-->action processes. You can be at every part of the source in "clicktime", which makes modifications, even its been months to a year since you touched the source, a incredible painless, most time dramtic supricingly easyfelt experience. I just had this experience. I have not been writing anything much since about january, and when I came back to my source, it took just a few hours to rewrite some large part of one of my demos. Despite all my stupid posts answering to nobodies like Randall Hyde and minions, I have a serious issue with asm programming. I really do want to see it flourish. This would make all of our lifes much easier and more exiting. Of course, in the grand view of things, programming isnt all that important, but in my life, it is the most important thing, for which all else have had to step aside. Even I can be flippant, I usually never lie. And if I do so, I do it so it is obvious, and ment as a joke. What I am saying here,now, is not a joke. There are no tool in the universe that can come close to the potential of a tool like RosAsm. No HLL, no assembler. Anywhere. If you dont belive me. Thats just sad. You should at least give it a _real_ try. That is, if you aim is to develop some application. RosAsm isnt yet the propper tool for doing nothing. > >> >> Maybe this Linux thing of Rene's is a sea change. Perhaps we'll start >> hearing about a "Wine-Asm" before too much longer. :-) > > Well he *does* whine a good deal about your work. But that goes back > to my original point to Joel -- when a child won't stop crying, people > tend to leave the room. So I do not believe that NG readers are > really paying attention to what Rene says. The only ones that do are > those who are looking for an argument... or they are fellow whiners > themselves -- "misery loves company!!" > > Nathan. >
From: Wolfgang Kern on 30 Aug 2007 05:26 Wannabee skrev: .... >> Joel doesn't own the name. So he couldn't take Rene to court. >> OTOH, the ReactOS team *has* asked Rene to stop using their project's >> name in his product name. The ethical thing for Rene to do would be to >> switch to a different name. > Idiotic argument. Those guys who said that needs to have a brain > transplant. Don't waste you time Are, these simple minded folks can't associate a picture of a rose with the name of a tool and just repeat all the ill constructed BS after their master. __ wolfgang
From: Betov on 30 Aug 2007 06:15 //\\\\o//\\\\annabee <w(a)w.w.w> �crivait news:op.txvczm02in6out(a)fasdfasdfasdfas: > I asked you once for posting working code to go to ring0, in windows There is a small demo at RosAsm Demos Page (3 ---> 0). Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: //o//annabee on 30 Aug 2007 07:41 P� Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:15:08 +0100, skrev Betov <betov(a)free.fr>: > //\\\\o//\\\\annabee <w(a)w.w.w> �crivait > news:op.txvczm02in6out(a)fasdfasdfasdfas: > >> I asked you once for posting working code to go to ring0, in windows > > There is a small demo at RosAsm Demos Page (3 ---> 0). I know, but last time I checked (years ago) this was for 9x. Does it work for NT as well? > > Betov. > > < http://rosasm.org > >
From: CodeMonk on 30 Aug 2007 06:45
rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu wrote: > On Aug 28, 9:08 am, CodeMonk <jas...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Betov wrote: >> >>>> Then why not add static linking to your assembler? You may have no >>>> reason to use it, but it will certainly please some >>> Because i am not used to work for implementing stupidities, >>> even when when people want it, clown. >> This deficiency could be addressed by wrapping the requisite LIB in a >> DLL and using the LoadLibrary and GetProcAddress API functions. An >> annoyance to be sure, but it's the only viable work-around I see. Mind you, most of this was in jest for Rene's benefit. Even so, I don't think anything said will alter his determination to stay on his present course. It might be somewhat misguided, from a real world perspective, but he's definitely sticking to his principle. > There are many bigger problems than just the annoyance. > First of all, there is the version problem (also known as "DLL Hell"). In this case I had the benefit of instituting the philosophy of everyone always has the current approved version of everything. Easy to do when you have the keys to the chicken coop and roll everything out while the brood is asleep. I realize that isn't practical, or even possible, in most situations. > Second, there is the issue of size: loading a DLL gets you *all* the > routines, not just the ones you actually call. > Of course, there is also the issue that functions in a DLL must be > called indirectly. Often, this is done by linking in an extra JMP > instruction (admittedly, not necessary, but many tools wind up doing > this). > > Also, DLLs carve up your address space inconveniently. A problem if > you have huge memory allocations or you use (large) memory-mapped > files. All good points and contributors to the annoyance :) There's also the potential for exception and thread handling issues if any of those DLL's have HLL runtime dependencies which may collide with the Win32-API way of doing things. > > Static linking avoids all of these problems. > I don't dismiss Rene's approach outright, as I myself have been known to paste a function into a module rather than link with the entire library. But yes, the ability to statically link with modules or libraries that programmers have neither the time, nor possibly the capability to reinvent, is a basic premise in the real world. - Scott |