On 2012-08-03 01:51, Uros Bizjak wrote: > The same reasoning goes for dynamic negation: for neg %eax,%eax value > 0x80000000 stays the same, but we have changed (x)sub to an (x)add in > the code stream.
So? Did you think the xadd will trap? r~
On 2012-08-03 01:51, Uros Bizjak wrote: > The same reasoning goes for dynamic negation: for neg %eax,%eax value > 0x80000000 stays the same, but we have changed (x)sub to an (x)add in > the code stream.
So? Did you think the xadd will trap? r~