Research: Asm-scanner

HackMew said:

Well, the non-ASM code in the picture is actually more confusing to read than pure ASM code from my point of view...

All those "+00" could be easily skipped to remove unuseful complexity, for example. Pointer dereferencing is not a very good idea as well. Oh, and brackets could help too.

Click to expand...

Atm that's true. The +00 are there because I use string templates instead of operation-trees. To solve that I'll add a flag to each register to indicate that this value is static and can be calculated without emulating. But to do that I'll have to reimplement all opcodes. :P

And the brackets are missing for the same reason. Because I save the add-instruction like this: "1+2". The numbers are substituted by the strings from previous instructions or with the register names. For this problem I'll make a operator-priority list. The other way would be to make the patterns like "(1)+(2)" but that would be a mess. (*((((4)+(35))*(((4)-(3))+(4))/(4)))... no thanks.

I updated the online-version. Temporary registers are now only shown when the called function actually uses them. There are still lots of bugs (Brackets, +00, etc.) but it certainly improved. It uses Firered instead of Ruby now.

LINK REMOVED

Yeah, I have to admit I have no idea what the heck is happening in your picture. I suppose it's one of those CISC vs RISC things and is a matter of preference.

Also, I can't connect to your site link to take a look at the real thing...

Still, good luck with it.