Closed Zardoz89 closed 9 years ago
why would you change it to a nopif
instead of simply removing it?
Debug, and to allow do to hackish stuff at low level. In any case, this instruction wouldn't be very usual.
why would you change it to a nopif
instead of simply removing the if
?
If you are debugging on the machine and you modify the program on the RAM, if you simply remove the IF, you must move part of the code
Yes, and? You modify the assembly source then reassemble. I don't see the issue.
Add a NOPIF instruction, that acts like the NOP instruction, but don't change the skip internal status.
In other words, if we found a code like :
And by some reason, someone debugging assembly code, needs to disable the middle IF instruction, could replace it by one (or two if uses a long immediate) NOPIF, that keeps the skip internal state intact.
And if we end doing something similar to the issue #20, of forcing to align to 8 byte boundary, instructions with long immediate, could be use to pad instructions on a IF chain, and align a long immediate instruction on the chain.