Hi Denys,
(2014/09/04 21:54), Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> Since xop and evex prefixes are extensions of vex mechanism,
> they have similar bit layouts, and they can never be combined
> (an instruction can have only one of them),
> (ab)use insn->vex_prefix to store data of xop and evex too.
>
> Users
Since xop and evex prefixes are extensions of vex mechanism,
they have similar bit layouts, and they can never be combined
(an instruction can have only one of them),
(ab)use insn->vex_prefix to store data of xop and evex too.
Users will need to conditionalize on insn->vex_prefix.bytes[0]
instead
(2014/05/20 0:04), Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On 05/17/2014 06:00 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> (2014/05/17 3:34), Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>>> Since xop and evex prefixes are extensions of vex mechanism,
>>> they have similar bit layouts, and they can never be combined
>>> (an instruction can have only
On 05/17/2014 06:00 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2014/05/17 3:34), Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> Since xop and evex prefixes are extensions of vex mechanism,
>> they have similar bit layouts, and they can never be combined
>> (an instruction can have only one of them),
>> (ab)use insn->vex_prefix to s
(2014/05/17 3:34), Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> Since xop and evex prefixes are extensions of vex mechanism,
> they have similar bit layouts, and they can never be combined
> (an instruction can have only one of them),
> (ab)use insn->vex_prefix to store data of xop and evex too.
>
> Users will need to
Since xop and evex prefixes are extensions of vex mechanism,
they have similar bit layouts, and they can never be combined
(an instruction can have only one of them),
(ab)use insn->vex_prefix to store data of xop and evex too.
Users will need to conditionalize on insn->vex_prefix.bytes[0]
instead
6 matches
Mail list logo