On Sun, 2017-05-07 at 19:20 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 06:29:59PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > > if (X86_MODRM_MOD(insn->modrm.value) == 0 &&
> > > X86_MODRM_RM(insn->modrm.value) == 5)
> > >
> > > looks more understandable to me.
> >
> > Should I go with
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 06:29:59PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > if (X86_MODRM_MOD(insn->modrm.value) == 0 &&
> > X86_MODRM_RM(insn->modrm.value) == 5)
> >
> > looks more understandable to me.
>
> Should I go with !(X86_MODRM_MOD(insn->modrm.value)) as you suggested in
> other
On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 12:52 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:32:43PM -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > Section 2.2.1.3 of the Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software
> > Developer's Manual volume 2A states that when the mod part of the ModRM
> > byte is zero and R/EBP is
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:32:43PM -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> Section 2.2.1.3 of the Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software
> Developer's Manual volume 2A states that when the mod part of the ModRM
> byte is zero and R/EBP is specified in the R/M part of such bit, the value
> of the