home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsm!cbnewsl!att-out!oucsboss!oucsace!sadkins
- From: sadkins@bigbird.cs.ohiou.edu (Scott W. Adkins)
- Newsgroups: rec.games.corewar
- Subject: Something more about PCT instrution...
- Message-ID: <1992Dec29.145229.14504@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu>
- Date: 29 Dec 92 14:52:29 GMT
- Sender: usenet@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Network News Poster)
- Organization: Ohio University CS Dept., Athens
- Lines: 32
-
-
- Hmmm... think about this as well...
-
- dat #5, #5
- dat #0, #0
- start pct 0
- mov -3, <-1
- mov -4, <-2
- end start
-
- Ok, the instruction if "start" is first protected, and will last for one
- modification attempt. Then the "mov -3, <-1" is executed. Since there is
- a predecrement in the B-Field and it is on a protected field, it will fail
- and the protection is removed from the address "start". This means that
- the effective address of "<-1" turns out to be 0 instead of -1, had the
- predecrement been successful. Well, now the mov instructions is evaluated.
- "mov -3, -1 (essentially)" (would have been "mov -3, -2 if predec was good)
- then grabs the "dat #5, #5" and overwrites the "pct 0" instruction.
-
- So, what I am saying is this... you can first unprotect an instruction with
- a predecrement or postincrement (yes, I have them too) and then overwrite
- them with the same instruction. Is this good?
-
- (If you haven't notice, I do advocate the PCT instruction. Give me a good
- reason why not to have it... "Too powerful" is not a good execuse judging
- from the above example!)
-
- Scott
- --
- Scott W. Adkins Internet: sadkins@ohiou.edu
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ak323@cleveland.freenet.edu
- Ohio University of Athens Bitnet: adkins@ouaccvma.bitnet
-