In 32-bit mode Intel solves the VEX prefix vs LDS/LES conflict by inverting the high bits of register extension, because the mod field of ModRM byte can't be 11b
The VEX prefix's initial-byte values, C4h and C5h, are the same as the opcodes of the LDS and LES instructions. These instructions are not supported in 64-bit mode. To resolve the ambiguity while in 32-bit mode, VEX's specification exploits the fact that a legal LDS or LES's ModRM byte can not be of the form 11xxxxxx (which would specify a register operand). Various bit-fields in the VEX prefix's second byte are inverted to ensure that the byte is always of this form in 32-bit mode.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VEX_prefix#Technical_description
However in EVEX the R and X bits aren't inverted, which results in mod=00b, which also indicates a memory operand in BOUND
instruction
Four bits R, X, B, and W from the REX prefix. W expands the operand size to 64 bits or serves as an additional opcode, R expands reg, B expands r/m or reg, and X and B expand index and base in the SIB byte. Comparing to the VEX prefix, RXB are provided in non-inversed forms, just like in the REX prefix.
So how can they decode that instruction overlap cleanly?
I checked the Intel manual and they seem to mention about the inversion of the bits only in VEX but not EVEX.
OTOH the table in sandpile says that those RXB bits in EVEX should be inverted as well.
Which of them is correct?
The trick with inverted bits works because of two facts:
An excerpt from a patent on AVX clarifies this:
However, the Intel SDM is unclear on this fact. I've looked through the SDM and indeed, in the EVEX section there are no traces of mentioning of the complement meaning of EVEX encodings. One must deduce it somehow from the fact that EVEX is an extension of VEX, and for the latter there is a statement of inverted meaning (volume 2A, section 2.3.5, the first bullet):