Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: "Wolfgang Kern" <nowhere@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:02:10 +0200
Rod Pemberton wrote:
I'm still not sure what the justification for that tenacious beliefYes Rod,
is...
you have to say what you found in conflict with the manuals...
I already posted .......
Ok,ok Rod :)
The manuals may show it different, so all we need to know is
how the CPU interpretes these opcodes. And we checked it.
My conclusion on this is that a 66h overide for LAR/LSL in PM32 is
useless..wrong, but I'd recommend it for PM16 in mixed environment.
And I may repeat myself for I see no fault in:
LSL eax,bx
because 'this is' what the CPU actually does, no matter how.
__
wolfgang
.
- 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
- 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: Wolfgang Kern
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Prev by Date: Re: announce: my very first disassembler now available (GPL)
- Next by Date: delete "0D"
- 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):