XPost: comp.lang.forth   
   From: address@nospicedham.not.available   
      
   Albert,   
      
   >>Not /allows/, but /generates/ just an arbitrary one of them.   When the   
   >>effect is the exactly same, why would you want to be able to pick one   
   >>yourself ?   What /good/ would that do you ?   
   >   
   > My ciasdis is a reverse engineering assembler. If you're in the habit   
   > of analysing viruses you wouldn't ask this question.   
      
   And what has being able to muck around with virus code to to with your FORTH   
   assembler ?  Thats right, absolutily nothing.   
      
   Though, feel free to come up with an example to why it does.  I do not mind   
   being educated.   
      
   > Why do you insist in using a patronizing assembler that bamboozles   
   > you?  As long as it suits you that is fine but not for this matter it is   
   > not.   
      
   :-)  The code has to run on an x86 ?    Than it doesn't really matter which   
   assembler you use.  Its just syntactic sugar.   
      
   > Okay. Apparently you insist on considering the code as being 32 bits.   
      
   You where free to correct my assumption in that regard, but have not seen   
   you do that.   Besides, the the dump in your previous post mentions it   
   ("S[ ] OK 'INC >CFA @ 20 DUMP      32 bit").   
      
   > This is the central genius trick that allowed AMD to introduce 64 bit   
   > computing: Repurpose the 4x instruction space as a prefix.   
      
   Ah, thataway.  Yes, you got me.  I do not have any 64-bit processor 'puters   
   here, am not aware of the 64-bit menemonics and have no disassemblers for it   
   either.    Although I think I could find out what it actually does from the   
   32-bit disassembly and a mnemonic lookup list for 64-bit instructions I   
   don't think I'm going to bother.   
      
   Goodbye.   
      
   Regards,   
   Rudy Wieser   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)