|
|
|
|
|
|
by EvanAnderson
58 days ago
|
|
|
I can't come with any reason why the author would have ever changed ES to DS at that point in the code. (Also, if there was a need they would have been better served with a "push ds / pop es" construct instead. Using si as an intermediate like that is lunacy. It feels very un-idiomatic for x86 assembler. Seeing "mov es, si" kinda made my head hurt a little.) |
|
|