Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly

From: Frank Kotler <fbkotler@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:47:05 -0400

Rod Pemberton wrote:

....

That is what Ndisasm is doing to lsl, and lar
decodes... It's emitting a 16-bit register for a 32-bit one, erroneously.

Well, file a bug report:

<http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=106208&group_id=6208&func=browse>

I think we're miscommunicating here, Rod. I know you know your ***, but I'm quite certain Ndisasm is "fixed" not "broken" between 0.98.39 and 2.03.01...

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
- 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
- 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
- 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: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
Next by Date: Re: JWasm v1.9 - now 1.91!!!
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