Vote: Use of third-party tools in cmd scripts - China DOS Union Forum

One hero needs three helpers. Many things are hard to complete with just one family's strength. It's much easier to find a helper!
Often have many troubles to solve with third-party tools when writing scripts!
What's everyone's view on using third-party tools in cmd scripts?
Also discuss methods of calling debug to generate com-type programs!
Attached:

set a=A100;E8A 80 CD89 C581 81 F980 7F06 CD09 8016 1F9 68 7F64EB 83BE E800 65 5AE3 73E8 65E8 3C00 7F4F 8808845 B0C2 F602 50E2 A0B0 E6F6 15F;E8C7 3D 32E3 C387 393C 27E 904 FB80 7E39 8003 9C3 F24 E380 C00F 4E0 D808;B850 B800 750 295A 89F5 EBE9 AC46 ACAC ACAC F7F7E2 4CB4 21CD FAEB E088 4CB4;21CD ACAC 203C 475 F9E2 9EB C388 3CAC 7520 E202 C3F9 C387 302C EB80 B430;F60A E4 C3D8 5953 4E42 DED0 C4B8 3032 3930 3231 3631 AC24 243C A74 88AA AAD0;F5E2 B4EB B2EB 49 49AF ACE3 B6E8 E3FF 87A7 3CC3 7E39 402 8009 39FB 37E;C380 2409 800F FE3 10B2 E2F6 D800 C288 C7E2 86EB
set b=;RCX;F0;N SYBC.COM;W;Q;
(ECHO.%a:;=&ECHO.DW %&ECHO.%b:;=&ECHO.%)|DEBUG

[ Last edited by sl543001 on 2010-1-20:47 at 20:47]

I took a look at the link posted by the person above and compared it with mine.

Final result

Compared to mine , the volume is a bit larger and the efficiency is a bit lower!

The main difference is that single-byte output similar to db requires 3 times the code, while double-byte output similar to dw only requires 2.5 times the code. 8-byte output seems that debug doesn't support it!

But the idea is very good, it can be modified to my output format!

Attachment:

@echo off
>nul (chcp 437&graftabl 936)
more +6 %0|debug
2>nul del /a /q /f new_.COM&ren tmp_ new_.COM
pause
exit/b
e 100 8A 0E 80 00 89 CD 81 C5 81 00 80 F9 08 7F 09 CD
e 110 16 80 F9 01 7F 68 EB 64 BE 83 00 E8 65 00 E3 5A
e 120 E8 73 00 3C 18 7F 53 88 C6 E8 57 00 E3 4C E8 65
e 130 00 3C 4F 7F 45 88 C2 B0 02 F6 E2 50 B0 A0 F6 E6
e 140 5F 01 C7 E8 3D 00 E3 32 87 C3 3C 39 7E 02 04 09
e 150 80 FB 39 7E 03 80 C3 09 24 0F 80 E3 0F C0 E0 04
e 160 08 D8 50 B8 00 B8 50 07 5A 29 F5 89 E9 EB 46 AC
e 170 AC AC AC AC E2 F7 B4 4C CD 21 EB FA 88 E0 B4 4C
e 180 CD 21 AC AC 3C 20 75 04 E2 F9 EB 09 88 C3 AC 3C
e 190 20 75 02 E2 F9 C3 87 C3 2C 30 80 EB 30 B4 0A F6
e 1A0 E4 00 D8 C3 53 59 42 4E D0 DE B8 C4 32 30 30 39
e 1B0 31 32 31 35 24 AC 3C 24 74 0A AA 88 D0 AA E2 F5
e 1C0 EB B4 EB B2 49 E3 AF 49 E3 AC E8 B6 FF E3 A7 87
e 1D0 C3 3C 39 7E 02 04 09 80 FB 39 7E 03 80 C3 09 24
e 1E0 0F 80 E3 0F B2 10 F6 E2 00 D8 88 C2 E2 C7 EB 86
rcx
F0
n tmp_
w
q

[ Last edited by sl543001 on 2010-1-22 at 13:06 ]

BAT + VBS + GNU + Perl pass by

The moderator just has one hero (BAT) and three helpers (VBS + GNU + Perl)

Floor1　sl543001	Posted 2010-01-21 20:37
中级用户　Posts 225　Credits 499
One hero needs three helpers. Many things are hard to complete with just one family's strength. It's much easier to find a helper! Often have many troubles to solve with third-party tools when writing scripts! What's everyone's view on using third-party tools in cmd scripts? Also discuss methods of calling debug to generate com-type programs! Attached: set a=A100;E8A 80 CD89 C581 81 F980 7F06 CD09 8016 1F9 68 7F64EB 83BE E800 65 5AE3 73E8 65E8 3C00 7F4F 8808845 B0C2 F602 50E2 A0B0 E6F6 15F;E8C7 3D 32E3 C387 393C 27E 904 FB80 7E39 8003 9C3 F24 E380 C00F 4E0 D808;B850 B800 750 295A 89F5 EBE9 AC46 ACAC ACAC F7F7E2 4CB4 21CD FAEB E088 4CB4;21CD ACAC 203C 475 F9E2 9EB C388 3CAC 7520 E202 C3F9 C387 302C EB80 B430;F60A E4 C3D8 5953 4E42 DED0 C4B8 3032 3930 3231 3631 AC24 243C A74 88AA AAD0;F5E2 B4EB B2EB 49 49AF ACE3 B6E8 E3FF 87A7 3CC3 7E39 402 8009 39FB 37E;C380 2409 800F FE3 10B2 E2F6 D800 C288 C7E2 86EB set b=;RCX;F0;N SYBC.COM;W;Q; (ECHO.%a:;=&ECHO.DW %&ECHO.%b:;=&ECHO.%)\|DEBUG [ Last edited by sl543001 on 2010-1-20:47 at 20:47]

Floor2　q8249014	Posted 2010-01-21 20:51
初级用户　Posts 45　Credits 175
http://www.cn-dos.net/forum/viewthread.php?tid=49469&fpage=1&highlight=%2Bq8249014

Floor3　sl543001	Posted 2010-01-21 21:08
中级用户　Posts 225　Credits 499
I took a look at the link posted by the person above and compared it with mine. Final result Compared to mine , the volume is a bit larger and the efficiency is a bit lower! The main difference is that single-byte output similar to db requires 3 times the code, while double-byte output similar to dw only requires 2.5 times the code. 8-byte output seems that debug doesn't support it! But the idea is very good, it can be modified to my output format! Attachment: @echo off >nul (chcp 437&graftabl 936) more +6 %0\|debug 2>nul del /a /q /f new_.COM&ren tmp_ new_.COM pause exit/b e 100 8A 0E 80 00 89 CD 81 C5 81 00 80 F9 08 7F 09 CD e 110 16 80 F9 01 7F 68 EB 64 BE 83 00 E8 65 00 E3 5A e 120 E8 73 00 3C 18 7F 53 88 C6 E8 57 00 E3 4C E8 65 e 130 00 3C 4F 7F 45 88 C2 B0 02 F6 E2 50 B0 A0 F6 E6 e 140 5F 01 C7 E8 3D 00 E3 32 87 C3 3C 39 7E 02 04 09 e 150 80 FB 39 7E 03 80 C3 09 24 0F 80 E3 0F C0 E0 04 e 160 08 D8 50 B8 00 B8 50 07 5A 29 F5 89 E9 EB 46 AC e 170 AC AC AC AC E2 F7 B4 4C CD 21 EB FA 88 E0 B4 4C e 180 CD 21 AC AC 3C 20 75 04 E2 F9 EB 09 88 C3 AC 3C e 190 20 75 02 E2 F9 C3 87 C3 2C 30 80 EB 30 B4 0A F6 e 1A0 E4 00 D8 C3 53 59 42 4E D0 DE B8 C4 32 30 30 39 e 1B0 31 32 31 35 24 AC 3C 24 74 0A AA 88 D0 AA E2 F5 e 1C0 EB B4 EB B2 49 E3 AF 49 E3 AC E8 B6 FF E3 A7 87 e 1D0 C3 3C 39 7E 02 04 09 80 FB 39 7E 03 80 C3 09 24 e 1E0 0F 80 E3 0F B2 10 F6 E2 00 D8 88 C2 E2 C7 EB 86 rcx F0 n tmp_ w q [ Last edited by sl543001 on 2010-1-22 at 13:06 ]

Floor4　HAT	Posted 2010-01-21 21:36
版主　Posts 5,017　Credits 9,023
BAT + VBS + GNU + Perl pass by

Floor5　sl543001	Posted 2010-01-23 18:20
中级用户　Posts 225　Credits 499
The moderator just has one hero (BAT) and three helpers (VBS + GNU + Perl)