On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> wrote: >> > Surely you'd also want to make this change for 0x11a and 0x11b. Which would > also simplify that code a bit. > > That said, there's *lots* of missing LOCK prefix checks. What brings this > one in particular to your attention? >
The motivation for this change is here: https://github.com/aquynh/capstone/issues/915 Apparently LLVM generates it in certain scenarios when padding with multi-byte nop (it shouldn't). >From what I understand, a proper instruction like "lock; <valid inst>" is converted to "lock; multi-byte nop; <valid inst>" due to code alignment. There were bugs reported regarding this: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/nativeclient/issues/detail?id=3929 I am not sure we want to fix this, but I thought it would be easy enough to cover this case. Thanks, -- Pranith
