title: Is this assembler bug? bound instruction
body: <p>About bytepattern <code>622c24</code>, there are 2 kind of case. 
  <br>
  <br>
  <br>
  The first case : <code>objdump</code> - <code>as</code> pair.  </p>
  
  <ol>
  <li><code>objdump</code> disassembles <code>622c24</code> to : <strong><code>bound  %ebp,(%esp)</code></strong></li>
  <li>linux <code>as</code> assembles <code>bound  %ebp,(%esp)</code> to : <code>622c24</code></li>
  </ol>
  
  <p><br>
  The second case : library <code>Capstone</code>- <code>keystone</code> pair.  </p>
  
  <ol>
  <li><p><code>Capstone</code> disassembles <code>622c24</code> to :  <strong><code>bound (%esp), %ebp</code></strong></p></li>
  <li><p><code>Keystone</code> assembles <code>bound (%esp), %ebp</code> to : <code>622c24</code></p></li>
  </ol>
  
  <p><br></p>
  
  <p>As you can see above, the position of source and destination is reversed.    </p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>objdump  : <strong><code>bound  %ebp,(%esp)</code></strong>  </li>
  <li>Capstone :   <strong><code>bound (%esp), %ebp</code></strong>  </li>
  </ul>
  
  <p><br>
  <br>
  According to AT&amp;T syntax, <code>BOUND r32, m32</code> is correct.<br>
  Therefore, that means Capstone-keystone pare is the correct one. </p>
  
  <p><strong><em>Q. So,  <code>objdump</code>-<code>as</code> has problem on disassembling <code>bound</code> instruction?</em></strong><br>
  <strong><em>Is it a bug of binutils?</em></strong></p>