translating Python to Assembler

[John Machin]

On Jan 27, 10:23 pm, o... at thepond.com wrote:
> >> >ajaksu at Belkar:~$ ndisasm error.txt
> >> >00000000  54                push sp
> >> >00000001  686973            push word 0x7369
> >> >00000004  206973            and [bx+di+0x73],ch
> >> >00000007  206E6F            and [bp+0x6f],ch
> >> >0000000A  7420              jz 0x2c
> >> >0000000C  61                popa
> >> >0000000D  7373              jnc 0x82
> >> >0000000F  656D              gs insw
> >> >00000011  626C65            bound bp,[si+0x65]
> >> >00000014  722E              jc 0x44
> >> >00000016  2E                db 0x2E
> >> >00000017  2E                db 0x2E
> >> >00000018  0A                db 0x0A
>
> >> >:/
>
> >> not sure what you're saying. Sure looks like assembler to me. Take the
> >> '54   push sp'. The 54 is an assembler opcode for push and the sp is
> >> the stack pointer, on which it is operating.
>
> >go troll somewhere else (you obviously don't know anything about
> >assembler and don't want to learn anything about Python).
>
> >-- bjorn
>
> before you start mouthing off, maybe you should learn assembler. If
> you're really serious, go to the Intel site and get it from the horses
> mouth. The Intel manual on assembler lists the mneumonics as well as
> the opcodes for each instruction. It's not called the Intel Machine
> Code and Assembler Language Manual. It's the bible on assembly
> language, written by Intel.
>
> If you're not so serious, here's a URL explaining it, along with an
> excerpt from the article:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_assembly_language
>
> Each x86 assembly instruction is represented by a mnemonic, which in
> turn directly translates to a series of bytes which represent that
> instruction, called an opcode. For example, the NOP instruction
> translates to 0x90 and the HLT instruction translates to 0xF4. Some
> opcodes have no mnemonics named after them and are undocumented.
> However processors in the x86-family may interpret undocumented
> opcodes differently and hence might render a program useless. In some
> cases, invalid opcodes also generate processor exceptions.
>
> As far as this line from your code above:
>
> 00000001  686973            push word 0x7369
>
> 68 of 686973 is the opcode for PUSH. Go on, look it up. The 6973 is
> obviously the word address, 0x7369. Or, do you think that's
> coincidence?
>
> Don't fucking tell me about assembler, you asshole. I can read
> disassembled code in my sleep.

What was originally posted was:
"""
ajaksu at Belkar:~$ cat error.txt
This is not assembler...

ajaksu at Belkar:~$ ndisasm error.txt
00000000  54                push sp
00000001  686973            push word 0x7369
00000004  206973            and [bx+di+0x73],ch
[snip]
"""

Read it again -- he's "disassembled" the text "This is not
assembler..."

54 -> "T"
686973 -> "his"
206973 -> " is"

but you say "68 of 686973 is the opcode for PUSH. Go on, look it up.
The 6973 is obviously the word address, 0x7369. Or, do you think
that's coincidence?"

You are a genius of a kind encountered only very rarely. Care to share
with us your decryption of the Voynich manuscript?