DOS ain't dead

2.04b vs 2.04c | BUG's (Announce)

posted by Japheth , Germany (South), 23.10.2010, 13:24

> 2. There are some aligns inside the binary and they contain random garbage
> rather than ZERO's. Is it documented anywhere that the aligns are expected
> and how they are supposed to work ?

Yes. These may be filler bytes used for segment alignment. They aren't written, there's just a file positioning, so the values may be OS-dependent.

This is expected behavior.

> 3. The stuff is messed up inside the executable, or, more likely, fine in
> the executable but messed up in the source. Is this effect, if not
> considered as bug, documented anywhere ?

I don't understand what you're talking about.

> 4. It produces garbage if -mz is not specified (see shot). Is this
> effect, if not considered as bug, documented anywhere ?

I don't understand what you're talking about. I see nothing peculiar in the "shot".

---
MS-DOS forever!

Complete thread:

• JWasm v2.03 - Japheth, 05.08.2010, 07:09 (Announce)
  • JWasm v2.04b - Rugxulo, 13.10.2010, 06:35
    • JWasm v2.04b - Japheth, 13.10.2010, 08:56
      • JWasm v2.04b - Rugxulo, 14.10.2010, 01:18
      • 2.04b vs 2.04c | BUG's - DOS386, 23.10.2010, 08:54
        • 2.04b vs 2.04c | BUG's - Japheth, 23.10.2010, 13:24
          • 2.04b vs 2.04c | BUG's (3 more) - DOS386, 24.10.2010, 04:20
            • 2.04b vs 2.04c | BUG's (3 more) - Japheth, 24.10.2010, 10:41
              • 2.04b vs 2.04c | BUG's (3 more) - DOS386, 17.11.2010, 04:24
  • JWasm v2.04c - Japheth, 17.10.2010, 21:15
    • JWasm v2.04c - EZEDIT 2.0 - Rugxulo, 29.10.2010, 23:08
      • JWasm v2.04c - EZEDIT 2.0 - Japheth, 30.10.2010, 08:59
        • JWasm v2.04c - EZEDIT 2.0 - Rugxulo, 19.11.2010, 16:56
          • JWasm v2.04c - Space Invaders - Japheth, 21.11.2010, 07:46
      • JWasm v2.04c - EZEDIT 2.0 - rr, 30.10.2010, 22:00