Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly

From: Frank Kotler <fbkotler@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:52:41 -0400

Rod Pemberton wrote:

"Frank Kotler" <fbkotler@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g84aq7$vr3$1@xxxxxxxxxxx

Rod Pemberton wrote:
...

I also noticed that 'lfs' and 'lgs' disassembled correctly, but
not 'lds' and 'les'...(?)

This is one that's been discovered and fixed.

Ndisasm 0.98.39
00000481 660F02C3 lar eax,ebx
000004F1 660F03C3 lsl eax,ebx

Ndisasm 2.03.01
00000481 660F02C3 lar eax,bx
000004F1 660F03C3 lsl eax,bx

Yeah...? Are you saying this is wrong?

Best,
Frank
.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
  - From: Rod Pemberton

References:
- NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
  - From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
  - From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
  - From: Rod Pemberton

Prev by Date: Re: a little program for format asm code
Next by Date: Re: announce: my very first disassembler now available (GPL)
Previous by thread: Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
Next by thread: Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread