| |
iAN CooG
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 3142 |
Release id #70940 : Exomizer v2.0beta7
didn't want to clobber the comments, better move this in forums:
Quote:
has anybody tested this one for viruses yet?
What the hell does this mean? Making viruses packed by exomizer or checking for presence of viruses inside the prebuilt exes? =) |
|
| |
A Life in Hell
Account closed
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 204 |
i tried packing an apple virus with exo. it worked. i would try with a cc64 virus, but i don't has any. wans't there a post about those? |
| |
SIDWAVE
Account closed
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238 |
I think this is bugged..
It has in the begin of the depacker this:
inc $01
tsx
lda 797a,x
...
...
thats pretty crap, as it cannot be sure what 01 is before doing the tsx.
i cant get my stuff working here, after a transfer in ram.
it only works on normal load from cold booted machine. |
| |
MagerValp
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1060 |
No, the ram transfer routine is buggy. It should set $01 to $37 before launching apps that load at $0801.
|
| |
iAN CooG
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 3142 |
Also make sure Stack Pointer is $f6 or more, if less expect the depack fail. As MV said, it's up to you to provide a correct environment for the depacker to work correctly because it assumes to be working from the direct mode after a load. You can always try other crunchers if Exo doesn't fit your needs, there is a shitload, hardly any crunch better than Exo but if you don't care saving every possible byte go with Pucrunch... no wait, weren't you using only native crunchers because you didn't want to use cross tools????? :D |
| |
SIDWAVE
Account closed
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238 |
Quote: Also make sure Stack Pointer is $f6 or more, if less expect the depack fail. As MV said, it's up to you to provide a correct environment for the depacker to work correctly because it assumes to be working from the direct mode after a load. You can always try other crunchers if Exo doesn't fit your needs, there is a shitload, hardly any crunch better than Exo but if you don't care saving every possible byte go with Pucrunch... no wait, weren't you using only native crunchers because you didn't want to use cross tools????? :D
It can't only be me who is doing things wrong..
I did the same as on all other multipart demos i ever made, and this one kept failing, this and that cruncher destroyed music, text etc. so in the end i decided to use exo, and even that fucks up LOL! |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11164 |
clearly the crunchers fault then =) |
| |
SIDWAVE
Account closed
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2238 |
Yes in fact, yes groepi.
This demo uses 99% RAM, and then its funny that 10 different crunchers all makes it fuck up, dont you think ?
It clearly shows, that when they promise "can crunch 00ff-ffff" is a lie! |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11164 |
and clearly noone tried and noticed until now! |
| |
Zagon
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 14 |
You can control the $01 value the decruncher expects when starting and what value it will leave in $01 when exiting by defining the decruncher symbols i_ram_enter and i_ram_exit on the crunch-commandline.
example: -Di_ram_enter=$38
See the section "Reference for the sfx decruncher symbols" in exo20info.txt for more details about tweaking the behavior of the decruncher.
|
| |
Radiant
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 639 |
Quote:Also make sure Stack Pointer is $f6 or more, if less expect the depack fail.
I'm currently decrunching from memory with SP relocated to $50, and it's worked with my test data. You're saying it's unreliable? :-( |
... 8 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| Previous - 1 | 2 - Next |
