XlogicX

4 ms·

1.
by XlogicX 8y ago
I have no objection to the utility of something like AAD. What I'm saying is that this same very instruction can do more at a machine level. AAD assembles to D5 0A, even though D5 is the part that refers to AAD, 0A is hardcoded for bas
2.
by XlogicX 8y ago
I love x86 complications (ARM is way more elegant in comparison), and I WILL be bothered to walk through mov %eax, (%r12), or 41 89 04 24 ---- 41 - being the amd64 prefix that 'unlocks' rax to being interpreted as r12 ---- 89 - s
3.
by XlogicX 8y ago
The main (actual) theme of the series is focusing on non 1-to-1 mappings, for any reason (useful or not). It's a thing that fascinates me. The phrase "$x is too high level" is mostly satirical, a phrase I've used for mor
4.
by XlogicX 8y ago
lol "isn't permitted", "unsupported", "undefined", are all trigger words for me; when I see them, it's the only thing I can think of doing. I get that more than 90% of the time something fucky is goin
5.
by XlogicX 8y ago
It's MOV and LSL that have the same binary encoding; everything is identical with exception to the imm5 vs the hardcoded 0's. MOV and LSL share the same op2 field of '00'. ROR and RRX share the op2 field of '11&#x27
6.
by XlogicX 8y ago
I 100% prefer text/book learning to lecture/video. But I guess not everyone is like us, so I tried experimenting with a dual format. Regarding the font, I never thought to change the ugly gray small font. I changed the CSS to make
7.
by XlogicX 8y ago
To let everyone in on a little !secret, the 'objections' to these encodings is satire, something that was laid on a bit thick at the end of this post. There have been no real objections to ARM so far. x86 is a different story, the