> you'd make sure you assembler chose ebp as the index not the base in cases like [ebp + edx]), of course. There's nothing that prevents existing assemblers to

> you'd make sure you assembler chose ebp as the index not the base in cases like [ebp + edx]), of course. There's nothing that prevents existing assemblers to already do this -- I haven't checked them though, since I used my own -- I use the term "compiler" as everything together up to the parts that produce the actual binary codes. I know that e.g. gcc makes (or, at least, made) an explicit separation producing the assembly in the source form. But it still would be plausible that it's already implemented in such assemblers -- which would make the userbinator's argument here even less relevant.