Skip to content

Commit 2c2675e

Browse files
committed
Fixed a syntax problem in markdown
1 parent 66a04a2 commit 2c2675e

File tree

1 file changed

+1
-1
lines changed

1 file changed

+1
-1
lines changed

issue09/README.md

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -856,7 +856,7 @@ and this is how it is assembled:
856856
}
857857
```
858858

859-
so we expect the '__TFSSg10startIndexVSS5Index` function to return this index to us but where is it returning it? all those that `Index` conforms to are protocols, not classes. so `String.Index` is a simple structure that conforms to three protocols. should we expect the value of an item of this type to be stored in a general purpose register? if we assume _yes_, and knowing that the start index of our string is 0, the only gpr that is 0 after the execution of `TFSSg10startIndexVSS5Index` is done is the `rdi` register. but could it be that `rdi` was set to 0 _before_ the `__TFSSg10startIndexVSS5Index` function? if we look closely:
859+
so we expect the `__TFSSg10startIndexVSS5Index` function to return this index to us but where is it returning it? all those that `Index` conforms to are protocols, not classes. so `String.Index` is a simple structure that conforms to three protocols. should we expect the value of an item of this type to be stored in a general purpose register? if we assume _yes_, and knowing that the start index of our string is 0, the only gpr that is 0 after the execution of `TFSSg10startIndexVSS5Index` is done is the `rdi` register. but could it be that `rdi` was set to 0 _before_ the `__TFSSg10startIndexVSS5Index` function? if we look closely:
860860

861861
```asm
862862
0000000100001491 lea rdi, qword [ss:rbp+var_50] ; argument #1 for method __TFSSg10startIndexVSS5Index

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)