On Mon, 2017-05-08 at 13:42 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 08:33:46PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > This is the reason I check the value of long_bytes. If long_bytes is not
> > 4, being the only other possible value 8 (perhaps I need to issue an
> > error when the value
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 08:33:46PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> This is the reason I check the value of long_bytes. If long_bytes is not
> 4, being the only other possible value 8 (perhaps I need to issue an
> error when the value is not any of these values),
Well, maybe I'm a bit too paranoid.
On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 15:51 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:32:45PM -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > The 32-bit and 64-bit address encodings are identical. This means that we
> > can use the same function in both cases. In order to reuse the function for
> > 32-bit address
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:32:45PM -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> The 32-bit and 64-bit address encodings are identical. This means that we
> can use the same function in both cases. In order to reuse the function for
> 32-bit address encodings, we must sign-extend our 32-bit signed operands to
>
